IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C AT KANAKAPURA
O.S.No.356/2021
Plaintiff Smt.Gowramma
Vs
Defendants Sri.H.K. Shivanna
UNDER ORDER VIII, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, THE DEFENDANT BEGS TO 'FILES
THE FOLWWING WRITTEN STATEMENT AS
UNDER:
1. The suit filed by the plainti ff is not at all
maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence the same
is liable to be dismissed in limine. The plainti ff has
suppre ssed the true and real facts before this Hon'b le
Court. Hence this Hon 'ble Court be pleased to dismiss
the suit of the plainti ff with exemplary cost.
2. The plaintiff has approached this Hon'ble Court
with unclean hand and are guilty of misrepresentation
of facts. The plaintiff has filed this false, frivolous,
vexatious, speculative and baseless suit agains t this
defendant without disclosing the true and real facts.
3. The averments made in para-2 of the plaint that,
the plainti ff is the absolute owner in possession and
Land Tribunal, Kanakapura has been passed the Order
dated 12.05.1982 in favour of the plaintiff and the
above said Basavaraju, after such order, the plaintiff
and the above said Basavaraju were in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the katha
of the said land was made out in the name of the above
said Basavaraju vide R.R.No.2178 and pahani got
written in the name of the above said Basavaraju,
thereafter, in the family arrangements, the plaintiff and
the above said Basavaraju have divided the above said
property through oral partition1 in such partition, the
said land bearing Sy.No.88, measuring 2.00 acres
allotted to the share of the plaintiff and another extent
of 2 acres 03 guntas allotted to the share of the above
said Basavaraju are all false and incorrect. Further
avennents made in the same para that, the plaintiff is an
innocent and an ignorant lady and she is not having
worldly knowledge except her signature as such she has
not been changed the katha of the said land in her
favour, thereafter, the plaintiff and her family members
have sold the said land measuring 0 1 acre in favour of
one P.Chinnaswarny S/o B.M.Papanna of
Basavanapura village, Beguru Hobli, Anekal Taluk
through Registered Sale Deed dated 06.09.2012 and she
inducted rum in possession of the same, now the
. "ff ·m · possession and enjoyment of
~~ IB the suit
• •
schedule pro b growing rag1, 3owar an.d oth. er
perty Y
cereal crops ov_er the same are all false and incorrect.
The plaintiff is hereby called upon for str
ict proof of the
same.
4. The averments made in para-3 of the
plaint th~t, the
defendant has no manner of rightt title,
interest and
possession over the suit schedule
property, the
defendant is stranger to the suit sched
ule property
except the relationship, the defendant
is the brother of
the plaintiff's husband and he was ret
ired Conductor at
B.MT.C, the defendant has ill-motiv
ated wi th the
defendant and also with an intention
to grab the su it
schedule property from the plaint
iff, he is illegally
changed the katha of the suit schedu
le property to his
name in collusion with the revenue offici
als be hin d the
back of the plaintiff, taltlng advant
age of the alleged
katha stands in his name, he often and
often illegally
interfering with the pla int ifr s peacef
ul possession an d
enjoyment in the suit schedule
property and also
dispossess the plaintiff from the same
are all false an d
incorrect. The plaintiff is hereby called
upon for str ict
pro of of the same.
5. The averments made in para•4 of the
plaint that on
16.07.2021 at about 10.30 AM, the
defendant and his
henchmen illegally trespassed into the suit schedule
proper ty and trying to interfere with the plaint iff's
peacef ul posses sion and enjoym ent of the suit schedule
property and also trying to dispossess the plaintiff from
the same withou t any valid reasons or cause are all false
and incorrect. Further averments made in the same
parara that, by the timely interv ention of the plaint iff
and the well-wishers in the locality, the defendant and
his hench men have not succee d in their illegal acts, the
plaint iff has reques ted the defend ant not to interfe re
with his peacef ul possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedu le property, but the defendant has not cared the
requests made by the plaint iff and he openly
procla iming that he denied the right and title of the
plaintiff in respect the suit schedule proper ty and he will
dispossess the plaint iff at any cost are all false and
incorrect. Furthe r averments made in the same para
that, in this regard the plaint iff has conve ned
panch ayath, the panch ayathd ars advise d the defend ant
not to interfere with the plaint ifr s peacef ul posses sion,
but the defend ant has not cared the advice given by the
panchayathdars, the plaint iff learnt through well-
wishers in the locality that, taking advan tage of the
alleged katha of the suit schedule property stands in his
name, he is hectic preparation to aliena te the suit
schedu1e pro
. perty in favour of third person to defraud
the right of the plaintiff, the defendant is very powerful
person in the locality> having men, money> might and
influence, the plaintiff is poor, aged and helpless person
in the locality are all false and incorrect. The plaintiff
is hereby called upon for strict proof of the same.
6. There is no cause or action for the suit and the
alleged cause of action in para-5 of the plaint is a
created, concocted and imagination of the plaintiff just
to file this baseless suit.
7. The other averments that are made in the plaint
which are not specifically traversed herein and which
are contrary to this written statement are alJ hereby
denjed as false and incorrect.
8. The sujt is not properly valued and the Court fee
paid is insufficient and on this Count also the suit of the
plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.
9. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as
prayed for in the plaint.
l 0. Without prejudice to the above contention the
defendant submits that, one Halagappa is the original
propositus, be had wife by name Smt.Devamma, both
are dead and they have got six chiJdren viz., (1)
Shivarudramma, (2) K.H.Shivarudrappa (hu
sband of
the plaintift), (3) H.K.Shivanna (defendan
t No. 3) (4)
Basavaraju, (5) Shivamrna and (6) Jayanthi.
11. The defendant further submits that~ the suit
schedule property bearing Sy.No.88,. total mea
suring 4
acres 07 guntas earlier belonged to the pro
pos itus
Halagappa and he was in possession and enjo
yment of
the same, which is hls ancestral property and kath
a of
the sam e was made out in his name. The
propositus
Halagappa is dead. After his death, his wife
Sm tDe vam ma and their sons viz., plaintiff,
defendant
and 3rd son Basavarajuhave divided their anc
estr al and
join t family properties through Partition Dee
d date d
07.05.2003. In such partition, the lands hearing
Sy .No.88, measuring 1 acre, out of 4 acre
s 07 guntas,
Sy.No. I 43/1 ~ measuring 0.11 guntas and Sy.No.143
/2,
measuring 0.09 guntas, all are situated at
Kemmale
village, Sathanur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk~
Ramanagara District allotted to the sha
re of the
defendant. The lands bearing Sy .No.88 mea
suring l
acre and Sy .No.143/2, measuring I acre
25 gu n~
Sy.No.143/3, measuring 0.09 guntas, Sy. No.
143/4,
measuring 0.1 guntas, Sy.No.143/5, measuri
ng 0.1 6
guntas, all are situated at Kemmate village, Sat han ur
Hobli, Kanakapura Talu~ Ramanagara District allotted
to the share of the husband of the plaintiff viz.,.
Shivarudrappa and the lands bearingSy.No.88,
measuring 2 acres 07 guntas, out of 4 acres 07 guntas,
Sy .No.143/ l, measuring O.11 guntas and Sy .No.14 3/2,
measuring 0.09 guntas, all are situated at Kemmale
villag•e, Sathanur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District allotted to the share of 3rd son
K.H.Basavaraju. After such partition, the katha of the
said property made out in their separate names vide
M.R.No.15/2003-04 and the plaintiff, the defendant and
the above said K.H.Basavaraju are in possession and
enjoym·ent of their respective shares, since from the said
partition. The plaintiff has not made the above said
K.H.B.Savaraju. Hence, the suit is also bad for non•
joinder of the necessary party.
12. The defendant further submits that, thereaft.er the
land bearing Sy .No.88 as per the share of the plaintiff~
defendant and K.H.Basavaraju, the above said land
bearing Sy .No.88, measuring 4acres 07 guntas has been
conducted durasth and pakka phodi work done and
assigned new survey numbers as Sy.No.88/l,
measuring l acre made out in the name of the defendant
No. I,. the land bearing Sy.No.88/2, measuring 1 acre
made out in the name of the husband of the plaintiff
viz., Shivarudrappa and the land bearing Sy .No.88/3,
measuring 2 acres 7 guntas made out in the name of
K.H.Basavaraju vide M.R.No.38/204-0Sand pahani got
written in their names.
13. The defendant further submits that, on 25.01.20 J2
the plaintiff has executed Sale Agreement in favour of
one Ramalingegowda in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.88//2, measuring l acre vide M.R.No.38/2004-
05 for valuable sale consideration amount of
Rs.27 75,,000/-, thereafter, the said sale agreement has
been cancelled. Further, the plaintiff and her children
viz.? Rathnamma, Saroja, Manjula, Pushpalathand
Maadevu have sold the said land bearing Sy .No.88/2,
measuring I acre in favour of one Chinnaswamy S/o
P.M.Papanna for valuable sale consideration amount of
Rs.1,95,000/- through Registered Sale Deed and they
have inducted him in possession of the same. After
such purchase, the katha of the same made out in the
name of the above said Chinnaswamy.
14. The defendant further submjts that, the defendant
has obtained agricultural loan from Canara Bank,
HonniganahaJli by mortgaged the land bearing
Sy.No.88/1, measuring I acre , situated at Kemnrnle
village, Sathanur HObl .1, Kanakap_ura Taluk,
-
Ramanagara District for developme
nt of the above said
land.
15. The defendant further submits tha
t, the plaintiff
has no manner of any right, title, int
erest or possession
over the suit schedule property. Th
e plaintiff and he r
children ha ve already sold their
land wh ich was allotted
to the share of the husband of
the plaintiff viz.,
Shivarudrapa as stated supra.
Th e plaintiff with an
intention to grab the property fro
m the de fen da nt and
also give unnecessary trouble
and ha ras sm en t to the
defendant jus t to file this ba
seless, frivolous an d
vexatious suit.
Wherefore, the defendant humb
ly pra ys tha t thi s
Ho n'b le Co urt be pleased to dis
miss the above suit wi th
exemplary costs, in the interest
of justice an d equity.
a -G_C~<f'D
Advocate for De fen da nt
~ ,c .. .. .. % ,- .. ,~
Kanakapura De fen da nt
Date: G. '\. "\ -\'1-',.
VERlFICATION
I, H.K.Shivanna, the defendant
above named~ do
hereby declare that what is sta
ted ab ov e are true an d
correct to the best of my know
ledge, information an d
belief.
KanakaP.ura ~ \L._ <3 ~ ..... -....> ~ N \ . .~
Da te: <; \'l \_ 'Z ., Defendant.
IN THE COURT OF HON'BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C AT KANAKAPURA
O.S.No.356/2021
Plaintiff Smt.Gowramma
Vs
Defendants Sri.H.K.Shivanna
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, H.K.Shivanna S/o Late Halagappa, aged about
68 years, residing at Kemmale village, Sathanur Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I am the defendant in the above case and well
acquainted with the facts. Today I have filed the
written statement in the above case.
2. I submit that what is stated in paras 1 to 15 of the
written statement are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, belief and information.
Identified by me,
q_-g.f "M'.J
Advocate
Kanakapura
~ ~ i l <f-n ~ ')..,
