KARN410004832017

[Link].280/2017(J.)

C.R.P.67 [Link] Karnataka

Form
No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet
for
Judgments in
Suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., AT MAGADI.

Present: Sri. Shivakumar R., B.A.L., LL.B.,

Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi.

Dated: 20th Day of September, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.280/2017

Plaintiff : Smt. Mahalakshmi,

W/o. Mahesha,
D/o. Late. Hanumappa,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at: Udukunte Village,
Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.

(By Sri. N.S., Advocate)

--V/s--

Defendants : 1 Sri. Hanumappa,

S/o. Late. Hanumanthaiah,
Since dead by his [Link]., and ors.,

2 Smt. Kamalamma,
W/o. Krishnappa,
D/o late Hanumappa,
KARN410004832017

[Link].280/2017(J.)

Aged about 40 years,

3 Smt. Nagarathnamma,
W/o. Narasimhaiah,
D/o late Hanumappa,
Aged about 38 years,

D2 & 3 are
R/at: Torekempanahalli,
Madanakote Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.

4 Sri. E. N. Ramachandra,
S/o. Narasimhaiah ,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at: No.31, 6th Main,
HVR Layout, Magadi Road,
Bangalore – 79.

5 Smt. Sowbhagayalakshmi @
Bhagyalakshmi,
W/o. Nagaraju,
D/o. Hanumappa,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at: Matadapalya,
Madabal Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.

6 Smt. Vijayalakshmi,
W/o. Kemparaju,
D/o. Late. Hanumappa,
Aged about 30 years,
KARN410004832017

[Link].280/2017(J.)

R/at: Siraganahalli,
Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.

7 Smt. Girijambika @ Girijambika,

W/o. Vijayakumar,
D/o. Late. Hanumappa,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at. Hemmigepura Village,
Hemmigepura,
Kengeri Hobli, Vidyapeeta Post,
Ramanagara District.

8 Smt. Mamatha K.,

W/o. Jayaraju,
D/o. Krishnappa,
R/at: Torekempanahalli,
Madanakote Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(Deleted as per Order dated: 02.06.2022)

( Defendant no.1 Dead )

( Defendant no.2,3, 5, 6 & 7 by Sri. T.H.C. Advocate )
( Defendant No.4 by Sri. L.P.S., Advocate )
( Defendant No.8 By Sri. M.N.R., Advocate )

Date of institution of Suit 22.11.2017

Nature of the suit Partition & Separate
Possession
Date of commencement of 07.11.2022
KARN410004832017

[Link].280/2017(J.)

recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment was 20.09.2025
Pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
07 09 28

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants

for the relief of partition, separate possession of her 1/6th

legitimate share in respect of item No.1 to 6, 7 & 9 of the suit

schedule properties and permanent injunction and also for

mesne profit in respect of suit schedule properties.

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as

follows:

(a) It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff and

defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7 are children of defendant No.1

namely Hanumappa. The said Hanumappa was died on

10.06.2012 and his wife Smt. Ramakka also died on

KARN410004832017

[Link].280/2017(J.)

13.12.2019. The brothers of the plaintiff and defendant No.2,

3, 5 to 7 namely 1) Sri. Manjunatha, who died on 14.03.2010

and another brother namely 2) Prasanna Kumar was died on

12.02.2009, both are unmarried. It is further submitted that,

the father of the plaintiff namely Hanumappa acquired the

item No.1 of the suit schedule property by virtue of the

registered sale deed dated: 16.02.1972, out of the joint family

nucleus. The plaintiff and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7 are the

members of the Hindu undivided joint family and suit

schedule properties are their joint family properties, they are

in joint possession of the same without effecting partition by

metes and bounds.

(b) It is further submitted that, when the plaintiff was

not willing to continue in the joint family along with the

defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7, she has demanded the defendants

to effect her legitimate share in respect of suit schedule

properties. During the first week of June 2011. The

KARN410004832017

[Link].280/2017(J.)

defendants have assured the plaintiff that, they will give her

legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff

on the basis of the assurance given by the defendants

believed that, they will effect partition in respect of suit

schedule properties. The plaintiff has conveyed the

Panchayath in the village during the last week of June 2011

in the presence of elders and well wishers to get her legitimate

share in the suit schedule properties. During the said

Panchayath the defendants have disclosed that, they have

already alienated the item No.1 of the suit schedule property

in favour of defendant No.4 namely Sri. E. N. Ramachandra

under the registered Sale Deed dated: 17.01.2003. The

defendant No.1 has no exclusive right, title and interest to

convey the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant

No.4 and the defendant No.4 is a stranger to the joint family

of plaintiff and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7.

KARN410004832017

[Link].280/2017(J.)

(c) It is further submitted that, thereafter the plaintiff

has obtained the revenue records pertaining to the suit

schedule properties from the concerned authority, after

obtaining the same she came about the alienation of item

No.1 of suit schedule property in the last week of June 2011,

she has also approached the defendant No.4 and the

defendant No.4 and he decline to meet the plaintiff and he

threatened the plaintiff with a dire consequences. Hence, the

plaintiff without any vexatious remedy approached this Court

for the relief of partition and separate of her legitimate share

in respect of suit schedule properties and also consequential

reliefs as sought in the plaint.

3. The defendant No.2 to 7 have appeared through their

respective counsels. The defendant No.3, 5 to 7 have filed the

written statement and they have admitted the plaint

pleadings and they have sought to decree the suit of the

plaintiff and also allot the shares of the defendant No.3, 5 to

KARN410004832017

[Link].280/2017(J.)

7. The defendant No.2 filed the memo and adopted the

written statement filed by the defendant No.3, 5 to 7 in the

above matter on behalf of defendant No.7.

4. The defendant No.4 have appeared through his

counsel and filed the detailed written statement and resisted

the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant No.4 in his written

statement he has totally denied the plaint averments and

interalia contended that, the father of the plaintiff has sold

the item No.1 of the suit schedule property in favour of

defendant No.4 through the registered sale deed dated:

17.01.2003. The item No.1 of the suit schedule property is

the self-acquired property of the father of plaintiff. Hence, the

said transaction was held much prior to 20.12.2004,

therefore the plaintiff has no locus standi to claim any right,

title and interest in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule

property. Hence, the present suit filed by the plaintiff against

the defendant No.4 in respect of item No.1 is not

KARN410004832017

[Link].280/2017(J.)

maintainable. For all these grounds, the defendant No.4

prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with exemplary

cost.

5. It is very relevant to note that, as per the Order

dated: 02.06.2022 passed by this Court in the above matter,

the defendant No.8 and item No.7 of the suit schedule

property were deleted.

6. On the basis of the pleadings and other materials

placed on record, my learned Predecessor has framed the

following;

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit

schedule properties are her joint family
properties?

2. Whether defendant No.4 proves that, item

No.1 of the suit schedule property is the self-
acquired property of the father of plaintiff?
KARN410004832017

10

[Link].280/2017(J.)

3. Whether the defendant No.8 proves that, the

item No.7 of the suit schedule property is the
self-acquired property of Hanumappa S/o. Late.
Hanumanthappa?

4. Whether the defendant No.8 proves that, the

present suit is barred by law of limitation?

5. Whether the plaintiff, defendant No.3 and 5

to 7 are entitled for the relief sought for?

6. What order or decree?

7. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff

has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P19,

in order to support her case the plaintiff has examined one

more witness by name Sri. Govindaiah as PW-2 and closed

her side.

8. In order to falsify the case of the plaintiff, the

defendant No.4 is examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1

to D25 and closed his side.

KARN410004832017

11

[Link].280/2017(J.)

9. Heard arguments of both sides. The learned counsel

for the plaintiff to support his arguments he has relied upon

the following citations;

(i) Munitayamma V/s. Byama, the same is

reported in 2022 (2) AKR 193.

(ii) Ganapathi Santaram Bhosale and another

Appellants V/S. Ramachandra Subbarao Kulkarni
and others respondents, the same is reported in
AIR 1985 KAR 143.

(iii) Ahalya H. Shetty V/S. Vathsala S. Shetty, the

same is reported in 2024 (1) AKR 715.

(iv) Smt. Lakshmamma V/s. Manju, the same is

reported in 2015(5) KCCR 1411 (DB).

(v) Gowramma V/s. Manasa, the same is

reported in 2024(1) AKR 741.

10. On the other hand, the defendant No.4 counsel has

filed the written arguments and also relied upon the following

citation;
KARN410004832017

12

[Link].280/2017(J.)

(i) (2020) 9 SCC 1 Vinutha Sharma V/s. Rakesh

Sharma & Ors.,

11. My findings to the above Issues are as follows:

Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.

Issue No.2 : In the Negative.
Issue No.3&4: Does not survive for consideration
as per the Order dated: 02.06.2022 passed by this
Court in the above matter.
Issue No.5: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.6: As per the final order,
for the following:-
REASONS

12. Issue No.1 & 2:- Since both these issues are

interconnected with each other, taken together for common

discussion to avoid repetition of facts. I have already

narrated what is the case of the plaintiff is and what is the

defense of the defendant No.2 to 7 is. The burden of proving

the issue No.1 is casted upon the plaintiff and the burden of

proving the issue No.2 is casted upon the defendant No.4.

KARN410004832017

13

[Link].280/2017(J.)

13. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the

plaintiff herself has filed the examination-in-chief by way of

affidavit and examined as PW-1. The PW-1 in her chief-

examination he has reiterated the plaint averments. The

plaintiff in order to prove her case, she has examined one

more witness namely Govindaiah as PW-2. The PW-2 in his

chief-examination he has deposed in-consonance with the

PW-1. Accordingly, he has supported the case of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff in order to substantiate her case, he has

produced as many as 19 documents Ex.P1 to P19. Ex.P1 is

the certified copy of the Order Sheet in [Link].298/2011,

Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the I.A., in [Link].298/2011,

Ex.P3 to 7 are the RTC Extracts, Ex.P8 is the M. R. Extract,

Ex.P9 is the RTC Extract, Ex.P10 is the Genealogical Tree,

Ex.P11 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated:

16.2.1972, Ex.P12 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed

dated: 23.06.1986, Ex.P13 are the RTC Extracts, Ex.P14 & 15

KARN410004832017

14

[Link].280/2017(J.)

are the Assessment Registers, Ex.P16 is the certified copy of

the Sale Deed dated: 09.02.1978, Ex.P17 is the certified copy

of the Sale Deed dated: 13.12.1978, Ex.P18 is the certified

copy of the Sale Deed dated: 17.01.2003 and Ex.P19 is the

Photograph.

14. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff, the

defendant No.4 has filed the examination-in-chief by way of

affidavit and examined as DW-1. The DW-1 in his chief-

examination he has reiterated the written statement

averments. In order to substantiate the case of the defendant

No.4 he has produced as many as 25 documents, which are

came to be marked as Ex.D1 to D25. Ex.D1 Copy of the

registered Partition Deed dated: 01.06.1951, Ex.D2 is the

RTC Extract, Ex.D3 to 10 are the Photographs, Ex.D11 is the

Sale Deed dated: 17.01.2003, Ex.D12 is the Sale Deed dated:

14.02.1972, Ex.D13 is the M.R. Extract, Ex.D14 is the RTC

Extract, Ex.D15 & 16 are the Revenue Receipts, Ex.D17 is the

KARN410004832017

15

[Link].280/2017(J.)

certified copy of the duplicate pension payment order, Ex.D18

is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated: 01.06.1951,

Ex.D19 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated:

18.03.1971, Ex.D20 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed

dated: 16.02.1972, Ex.D21 is the certified copy of the Sale

Deed dated: 01.12.1972, Ex.D22 is the certified copy of the

Sale Deed dated: 09.02.1978, Ex.D23 is the certified copy of

the Gift Deed dated: 19.07.1999 and Ex.D24 & 25 are the

RTC Extracts.

15. On meticulous reading of oral and documentary

evidence adduced by both parties and other materials placed

on record, admittedly the plaintiff has filed the suit for the

relief of partition and separate possession of her 1/6th

legitimate share against the defendants in respect of item

No.1 to 6, 8 & 9 of the suit schedule properties and for the

relief of permanent injunction and also for the relief mesne

profit in respect of said properties.

KARN410004832017

16

[Link].280/2017(J.)

16. It is very pertinent to note that, the defendant No.2,

3, 5 to 7 have not disputed their relationship with the

plaintiff. The plaintiff being the sister of defendant No.2, 3, 5

to 7 herein. In order to prove the relationship between the

parties, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P10 – notarized copy of

the Genealogical Tree, the said exhibit is not denied by the

defendants. According to plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendant

No.2, 3, 5 to 7 are the members of Hindu undivided joint

family and suit schedule properties are their joint family

properties, they are in joint possession of the same without

effecting partition. When such being the case, the father of

the plaintiff has no absolute right to execute the registered

sale deed dated: 17.01.2003 in favour of defendant No.4 in

respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Hence,

the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule

properties.
KARN410004832017

17

[Link].280/2017(J.)

17. The plaintiff in order to prove that, the suit

schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff

and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7. Apart from oral testimony of

the PW-1 and PW-2, the plaintiff has mainly relied upon the

documentary evidence. As per the plaintiff, the father of the

plaintiff namely Hanumanthappa has purchased the item

No.1 of the suit schedule property through the registered sale

deed 16.02.1972 in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule

property with the aid of joint family nucleus. In order to

substantiate the same, the plaintiff has produced the Ex.P10.

Ex.P10 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated:

16.02.1972. On perusal of the same, it disclose that, the

father of the plaintiff has purchased the item No.1 of the suit

schedule property for a valuable sale consideration of

Rs.3,000/- from his vendor. It is further pleaded by the

plaintiff in her pleadings that, the item No.1 of the suit

schedule property is also joint family property of plaintiff’s

KARN410004832017

18

[Link].280/2017(J.)

family. The plaintiff and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7 are in joint

possession of the same without effecting partition. When

such being the case, the defendant has alienated the item

No.1 of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.4

through the registered sale deed dated: 17.01.2003. The

father of the plaintiff alone has no absolute right to execute

the alleged sale deed in favour of the defendant No.4 in

respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The

plaintiff and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7 are entitled for equal

share in the item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The

plaintiff has produced the Ex.P18. Ex.P18 is the certified copy

of the registered sale deed dated: 17.01.2003. It appears

that, the father of the plaintiff during his life time he has sold

the item No.1 of the suit schedule property in favour of

defendant No.4 through the registered sale deed.

18. On the other hand, the defendant No.4 contended

that, the item No.1 of the suit schedule property is the self-
KARN410004832017

19

[Link].280/2017(J.)

acquired property of the father of the plaintiff namely

Hanumanthappa, he has acquired the same by virtue of the

registered sale deed dated: 16.02.1972 from his vendor and

more over he has sold the same in favour of the defendant

No.4 through the registered sale deed dated: 17.01.2003. The

said transaction took place much prior to 20.12.2004.

Hence, the suit of the plaintiff in respect of item No.1 of the

suit schedule property against this defendant is not

maintainable.

19. On perusal of the plaint pleadings, the plaintiff

specifically pleaded that, the item No.1 to 6, 8 & 9 of the suit

schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff

and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7, they are in joint possession of

the same without effecting partition. Admittedly, during the

life time of father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 to 7

namely Hanumanthappa has sold the item No.1 of the suit

schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 herein through

KARN410004832017

20

[Link].280/2017(J.)

the registered sale deed dated: 17.01.2003. The plaintiff and

defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7 are being the daughters of Late.

Hanumanthappa. On perusal of the Section 6(5) of Hindu

Succession Act amended 2005, it clearly appears that, a

daughter would generally not be entitled to a share in joint

family property alienated by her father before December 20,

2004, as the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

protected such past transaction. The 2005 amendment

granted daughters coparcenary rights, but a special proviso

specifically excluded any dispositions, alienations, or

partitions that had occurred before December 20, 2004,

ensuring these prior events remained unaffected.

20. The Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of the

Vineetha Sharma V/s. Rakesh Sharma and others reported

in (2020) 9 Supreme Court Cases 1. In the said Judgment

the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.137 pleased to held

that,
KARN410004832017

21

[Link].280/2017(J.)

“The rights can be claimed by the daughter born

earlier with effect from 09.09.2005 with savings as
provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or
alienation, partition or testamentary disposition
which had taken place before the 20th day of
December, 2004.”

On perusal of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid

decision is aptly applicable to the present case on hand. In

the present case hand also the father of the plaintiff and

defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7 have sold the item No.1 of the suit

schedule property in favour of defendant No.4 through the

registered sale deed dated: 17.01.2003. Therefore, the

plaintiff and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7 have no rights over the

item No.1 of the suit schedule property. Hence, this Court

considered view that, the item No.1 of the suit schedule

property is not joint family property of the plaintiff and

defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7. Hence, the item No.1 of the suit

schedule property is not available for partition.

KARN410004832017

22

[Link].280/2017(J.)

21. It is very relevant to note that, the defendant No.4

has taken a specific contention in his written that, the item

No.1 of the suit schedule property is the self-acquired

property of the father of the plaintiff. Except self-swearing

statement, the defendant No.4 has not produced any iota of

documents nor examined any witnesses. In the absence of

the same its hold no water in the eye of Law. The contention

of the defendant No.4 is not tenable in the eye of Law.

22. The plaintiff has produced the RTC Extract for the

year 2013-14, which is came to be marked as Ex.P7. On

perusal of the same, the khata in respect of item No.2 of the

suit schedule property is stands in the name of Hanumappa,

who is the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 to 7

herein. The plaintiff has produced the Ex.P5 is the RTC

Extract for the year 2013-14. On perusal of the same, it

disclose that, the khata of the item No.3 of the suit schedule

property is stands in the name Hanumappa S/o.

KARN410004832017

23

[Link].280/2017(J.)

Hanumanthaiah. The plaintiff has produced the Ex.P3, Ex.P3

is the RTC Extract for the year 2016-17. On perusal of the

same, it appears that, the khata of the item No.4 of the suit

schedule property stands in the name of Hanumappa S/o.

Hanumanthaiah. The plaintiff has produced the RTC

Extracts, which are came to be marked as Ex.P13 (64 RTC

Extracts). On perusal of the same, in some of the RTC

Extracts, the khata of the item No.6 of the suit schedule

property stands in the name of Hanumappa S/o.

Hanumanthaiah and likewise on perusal of the same, the

khata of the item No.5 of the suit schedule property is also

stands in the name of Hanumappa S/o. Hanumanthaiah.

Ex.P14 is the Tax Assessment Register Extract. On perusal of

the same, the khata of the item No.8 & 9 of the suit schedule

properties are stands in the name of Hanumappa S/o.

Hanumanthaiah. It is very pertinent to note that, on perusal

of the Ex.P14 and plaint schedule in the above matter, it

KARN410004832017

24

[Link].280/2017(J.)

appears that, the extent of the item No.8 & 9 was exchanged

in the plaint schedule. It is very relevant to note that, the

defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7 have not disputed the mode of

acquisition of the item No.2 to 6 & 8 & 9 of the suit schedule

properties and also they have not denied the case of the

plaintiff and they have also prays to decree the suit of the

plaintiff and to allot their respective shares in the suit

schedule properties. With great respect, I have perused the

citations relied upon by the plaintiff’s counsel. The facts and

circumstances of those cases and the facts and

circumstances of the present case are different. Hence, the

said citation is not applicable to the present case on hand.

By considering over all oral and documentary evidence

adduced by both the parties and other materials placed on

record, this Court safely come to conclusion that, the plaintiff

has proved that, the item No.2 to 6, 8 & 9 of the suit

schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs

KARN410004832017

25

[Link].280/2017(J.)

and also proved that, there is no partition between the

plaintiff and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7 in respect of item No.2

to 6, 8 & 9 of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff

failed to prove that, item No.1 of the suit schedule property is

the joint family property of the plaintiff. Hence, the item No.1

is not available for partition. Hence, for considering all these

reasons, I answer the Issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative and

Issue No.2 in the Negative.

23. Issue No.5:- The plaintiff in the instant suit she

has sought for account of mesne profit from the date of suit

up to date of delivery of separate possession. It is very

pertinent to note that, the plaintiff has not produced any

documents with regard to the actual income of the suit

schedule properties and she has not adduced any evidence.

Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for accounting of mesne

profit in the present suit, but liberty is given to the plaintiff to

initiate separate suit/proceeding for accounting of mesne

KARN410004832017

26

[Link].280/2017(J.)

profit. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled of accounting of

mesne profit in the present case on hand.

24. In this suit, the plaintiff has proved that, the item

No.2 to 6, 8 & 9 of the suit schedule properties are the joint

family properties of plaintiff and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7.

Admittedly, the father and mother of the plaintiff and

defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7 were intestate. Hence, the plaintiff

and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7 are being the daughters Late.

Hanumappa. Hence, the plaintiff and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to

7 are entitled for 1/6th share each in respect of item No.2 to

6, 8 & 9 of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.

The suit in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property

is stands dismissed. The plaintiff is not entitled for any share

in item No.1 of the suit schedule property and also the

plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction.

For considering all these reasons I answer Issue No.5 Partly

in the Affirmative.
KARN410004832017

27

[Link].280/2017(J.)

25. Issue No.6: In view of my above findings, I proceed

to pass the following :

ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly
decreed.
The plaintiff and defendant No.2, 3, 5 to 7
are entitled for 1/6th share each in the item No.2
to 6, 8 & 9 of the suit schedule properties by
metes and bounds.
The suit in respect of item No.1 of the suit
schedule property is stands dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and also regard being had to the
relationship between the parties, the parties shall
bear their own cost.
Draw Preliminary Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Typist on computer, typed by her, corrected
by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the
20th day of September, 2025.)

(SHIVAKUMAR.R)
ADDL. Sr. CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C, MAGADI.
KARN410004832017

28

[Link].280/2017(J.)

ANNEXURE

List of witness examined for the plaintiffs:

PW.1 : Smt. Mahalakshmi
PW.2 : Sri. Govindaiah

List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs:

Ex.P1 : C.C. of the Order Sheet in [Link].298/2011
Ex.P2 : C.C. of the I.A., in [Link].298/2011
Ex.P3to7 : RTC Extracts
Ex.P8 : M. R. Extract
Ex.P9 : RTC Extract
Ex.P10 : Genealogical Tree
Ex.P11 : C.C. of the Sale Deed dated: 16.2.1972
Ex.P12 : C.C. of the Sale Deed dated: 23.06.1986
Ex.P13 : 64 RTC Extracts
Ex.P14&15: 2 Assessment Register
Ex.P16 : C.C. of the Sale Deed dated: 09.02.1978
Ex.P17 : C.C. of the Sale Deed dated: 13.12.1978
Ex.P18 : C.C. of the Sale Deed dated: 17.01.2003
Ex.P19 : Photograph

List of witnesses examined for the defendants:

DW-1 : Sri. E. N. Ramachandra

List of documents exhibited for the defendants:

Ex.D1 : Copy of the registered Partition Deed
dtd: 01.06.1951
Ex.D2 : RTC Extract
Ex.D3 to 10: Photographs
Ex.D11 : Sale Deed dtd: 17.01.2003
Ex.D12 : Sale Deed dtd: 14.02.1972
Ex.D13 : M.R. Extract
Ex.D14 : RTC Extract
KARN410004832017

29

[Link].280/2017(J.)

Ex.D15&16: Revenue Receipts

Ex.D17 : C.C. of the duplicate pension payment order
Ex.D18 : C.C. of the Sale Deed dated: 01.06.1951
Ex.D19 : C.C. of the Sale Deed dated: 18.03.1971
Ex.D20 : C.C. of the Sale Deed dated: 16.02.1972
Ex.D21 : C.C. of the Sale Deed dated: 01.12.1972
Ex.D22 : C.C. of the Sale Deed dated: 09.02.1978
Ex.D23 : C.C. of the Gift Deed dated: 19.07.1999
Ex.D24&25: RTC Extracts

(SHIVAKUMAR R.,)
ADDL. Sr. CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., MAGADI.
KARN410004832017

30

[Link].280/2017(J.)

The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby partly decreed.

The plaintiff No.2 to 5 and defendant No.1 to 3 & 5 are
entitled for 1/9th share each in respect of item No.1, 6 to 8
of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.
The [Link]., of the plaintiff No.1(a) to (c) are entitled for 1/9th
share together in respect of item No.1, 6 to 8 of the suit
schedule properties by metes and bounds.
The suit in respect of item No.2 to 5 is hereby dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also
regard being had to the relationship between the parties,
the parties shall bear their own cost.
Draw Preliminary Decree accordingly. In

view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in Civil Appeal No. 6406-6407/2010 between

Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan V/S. Kattukandi

Edathil Valsan & Ors., dated: 13.06.2022, the

office is hereby directed to register this case as

FDP in order to take steps under Order XX Rule

18 of C.P.C., by the parties.

Call on 13.01.2025.