Govt.

of Karnataka
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS IN
Form No. 9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR
Judgment in Suits CIVIL JUDGE & J.M.F.C., AT DEVANAHALLI.
(R.P. 91)

PRESENT
SRI. PRAVEEN NAYAK, LLM.,
Addl. Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C.,
Devanahalli.

Dated this the 13th Day of December,2023.

[Link].294/2009

1. Smt. K.V, Dyavamma, : PlaintiTs

W/o B.N. Venkatesh,
Aged about 30 years,

2. Sri. Manoj,
S/o B.N. Venkatesh,
Aged about 09 years,

3. Sri. Karthik,
S/o B.N. Venkatesh,

PlaintiNs No.2 & 3 are

Represented by their mother,
Who is a natural Guardian,
K.V. Dyavamma.

All are residing at

Kannappanahalli Village,
Bashettihalli Hobli,
Sidlaghatta Taluk.
 2 [Link].294/2009

(Pltfs. - By Sri.
D.A.A., Advocate)

- V/s. -

1. Sri. Narayanaswamy, : Defendants

S/o. Kurappa,
Aged about 55 years,

2. Sri. B.N. Venkatesh,

S/o. Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 35 years,

3. Sri. B.N. Gangappa,

S/o. Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 30 years,

4. Smt. Susheelamma,
D/o. Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 28 years,
Shetturahalli Village,

5. Smt. Manjulamma,
D/o. Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 25 years,
Kandavara Pete,
Chikkaballapura Taluk.

Defendants No.1, 2 & 3

R/at: Byadarahalli Village,
Kundana Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk.

6. Sri. G. Sudeer Reddy,

S/[Link]. G. Narayanareddy,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at: No.42,
Kalamma Temple Road,
T. Dasarahalli,
Bangalore-560 057.
 3 [Link].294/2009

7. Smt. Munikempamma,
W/o Late Chikkamunivenkatappa,
Aged about 91 years,
R/at: Byadarahalli Village,
Kundana Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.

(Def.1, 2 & 5 - By Sri.

A.R., Advocate)
Def. 3 & 4 - Exparte
(Def.6 - By Sri. A.R.S.R.,
Advocate)
(Def.7 - By Sri. A.N.,
Advocate)

~~~~

Date of institution of suit : 01-06-2009

Nature of the suit : Partition

Date of commencement of
Recording of the evidence : 09-07-2021
Date on which the judgment
Pronounced : 13-12-2023

Year/s Month/s Day/s

Total duration : 14 06 12

(SRI. PRAVEEN NAYAK)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C.,
Devanahalli.

*-*-*-*-*
 4 [Link].294/2009

JUDGMENT

This is a suit for Partition and Declaration.

2. The brief averments of the PlaintiT’s case are

as follows:
The plaintiN No.1 is legally wedded wife of second defendant.
The `rst plaintiN’s marriage was solemnized with second
defendant at Lakshmipura, Devanahalli Taluk on 25.04.1999.
The plaintiNs No.2 and 3 are the children of the plaintiN No.1
and defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 neglected the
plaintiNs. The plaintiNs are taking shelter in the house of the
parents of plaintiN No.1. The second defendant married to
second wife by name Shobavathi. The `rst defendant is the
father of defendants No.2 to 5. The defendants No.4 and 5
being the daughters are already married and residing at their
matrimonial house. The plaintiNs and defendants are the
members of joint family. The suit schedule properties are the
ancestral and joint family properties. The defendant No.1, in
order to deprive the plaintiNs from their legitimate share, is
now tying to transfer the suit schedule properties in favour of
various persons. The `rst defendant executed gift deed dated
20.03.2009 in favour of Shobavathi, the second wife of
defendant No.2. The defendants are also making
arrangements to alienate the properties. The plaintiNs are
entitled for 1/3rd share out of 1/6th share to be allotted to the
defendant No.2. The defendants No.1 to 5 executed registered
Sale Deed dated 05.04.2010 in respect of item No.4 of suit
 5 [Link].294/2009

schedule properties during the pendency of the suit and the

same is not binding upon the plaintiNs. Hence, the suit.

3. In response to suit summons, the defendants No.1 ,

2, 5, 6 and 7 appeared through their counsel and `led written
statement. The defendants No.3 and 4 placed exparte. In the
written statement the defendants No.1 and 2 have denied the
case of the plaintiNs. It is stated that the suit schedule
properties are not ancestral and joint family properties of
plaintiNs and the defendants as the defendant No.1 did not
inherit the same from his father. The suit schedule properties
are self acquired properties of `rst defendants uncle by name
Chikkamunivenkatappa and his wife Munikempamma. The said
Chikkamunivenkatappa and Munikempamma had no issues.
The `rst defendant is their foster son. Chikkamunivenkatappa
and his wife bequeathed the suit schedule properties in favour
of `rst defendant through a registered will dated 02.09.1976.
The said Chikkamunivenkatappa died about 15 years ago.
Munikempamma is still alive. All the suit schedule properties
are the self acquired properties of the `rst defendant and he
got every right to dispose oN the same. The plaintiNs and the
defendants No.2 to 5 have nothing to do with the suit schedule
properties. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.

4. The defendant No.6 `led separate written

statement by denying the case of the plaintiNs and stated that
Chikkamunivenkatappa being the absolute owners of item
 6 [Link].294/2009

No.4 of suit schedule properties executed a registered will

dated 02.09.1976 in favour of defendant No.1 and after the
death of Chikkamunivenkatappa, the defendant No.1 became
absolute owner of the said property. The defendant No.1 being
the absolute owner of suit item No.4 property sold the same in
favour of defendant No.6 through registered Sale Deed dated
05.04.2010. The defendant No.6 has been in possession and
enjoyment over the item No.4 property from the date of the
purchase. The plaintiNs have no legal right in respect of the
said property. The suit is `led without any cause of action and
barred under law. Hence, prayed to dismissed the suit with
cost.

5. The defendant No.7 `led written statement by

denying the case of the plaintiNs and stated that the claim of
the plaintiNs and defendants No.1 to 6 is false as
Chikkamunivenkatappa and defendant No.7 being the absolute
owners have executed the will dated 02.09.1976 and the will
comes into eNect only after the death of defendant No.7. No
right is transferred in favour of defendant No.1 by virtue of the
alleged registered will yet. The defendant No.1 in collusion
with revenue oecials got changed the revenue entries in his
name and also sold suit item No.4 in favour of defendant No.6.
As the defendant No.1 had no authority to sell the item No.4
property, the defendant No.6 has not acquired any right over
the said property on the basis of the Sale Deed. The suit for
 7 [Link].294/2009

division of properties is not maintainable. Hence prayed to

dismissed the suit with cost.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings the

following issue are framed by my predecessor in o_ce:

1. Whether the plaintiNs prove that themselves

and defendants have constitute Hindu
undivided joint family and suit properties are
their ancestral and joint family properties and
in their joint possession ?

2. Whether the plaintiNs further prove that, after

the birth of 3rd plaintiN the 1st defendant fell in
bad vices and started neglecting and ill-
treating the plaintiN and contracted the 2nd
marriage with a lady by name Shobhavathi and
wasting ancestral properties ?

3. Whether the plaintiNs prove that, the 1 st

defendant without having right over suit
properties, has executed gift deed in favour of
his 2nd wife Smt. Shobhavathi and that gift
deed does not bind the right and interest of the
plaintiNs ?

4. Whether the plaintiNs prove that they have

demanded for partition and separate
possession of their legitimate share in the suit
 8 [Link].294/2009

properties but the 1st defendant has refused to

meet with their demand ?

5. Whether the defendants No.1, 2 and 5 prove

that the suit properties are the self acquired
properties of 1st defendant who got it through
a registered will dated 02.09.1976 executed
by Chikkamunivenkatappa and plaintiNs have
no right of share in the suit properties ?

6. Whether the plaintiNs are entitled for the

relieves prayed for ?

7. What order or decree ?

Additional Issues Framed On 14-10-2020.

1. Whether the defendant No.6 proves that the

item No.4 property was originally belong to
one Chikkamunivenkatappa. The said
Chikkamunivenkatappa executed will deed in
favour of defendant No.1 on 02.09.1976 ?

2. Whether the defendant No.6 proves that, the

defendant No.1 being the owner of suit item
No.4 property as alienated the same to him
under registered Sale Deed dated 05.04.2010 ?

Additional Issue framed on 17-06-2022

 9 [Link].294/2009

Whether the defendant No.6 proves that, the

defendant No.1 being the owner of suit item
No.4 property as alienated the same to him
under registered Sale Deed dated 05.04.2010 ?

7. In order to prove their case the plaintiNs got

examined the plaintiN No.1 as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to
P9 and Ex.P12. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiNs
the defendants got examined the defendant No.1 has DW.1.
They have also examined the defendant No.7 has DW.2 and
got marked Ex.D1 to D5. During the cross-examination of
DW.1, Ex.P10 and P11 were confronted to the witness and
marked.

8. Heard arguments.

9. My answer to the above issues are as

follows:-

Issue Nos.1 to 6 : In the Negative

[Link]
Nos.1 & 2 : In the Negative
dated: 14.10.2020
[Link] : In the A_rmative
dated :17.06.2022

Issue No.7 : As per bnal order for

the following :

REASONS
 10 [Link].294/2009

10. Issue Nos.1 to 5: These issues are taken together

for common discussion as these issues are interlinked and the
evidence adduced is also common.

11. The plaintiNs have taken a contentions that the

plaintiN No.1 is the wife of defendant No.2 and plaintiNs No.2
and 3 are their children. The suit schedule properties are the
ancestral and joint family properties of the family consisting of
the plaintiNs and defendants No.1 to 5. The plaintiNs have
speci`cally pleaded that they are in joint possession and
enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. On the other
hand the defendants No.1, 2 and 5 have taken a contention
that the suit properties are self acquired properties of the `rst
defendant, who acquired the same through registered will
dated 02.09.1976, executed by Chikkamunivenkatappa and his
wife Munikempamma and the plaintiNs have no right to seek
share in the suit properties.

12. In order to prove their case the plaintiNs got

examined the plaintiN No.1 as PW.1. In her chief-examination
she has reiterated the plaint averments. During the cross-
examination PW.1 has deposed that the suit properties were
acquired by the defendant No.1 from her grandfather. The
name of the father of defendant No.1 is Koorappa. She does
not know the name of the father of Koorappa. Koorappa had 5
children by name Munishamappa, Kempanna, Munikrishnappa,
Pillakrishnappa and Narayanaswamy. She does not know
 11 [Link].294/2009

whether there was a partition among the children of Koorappa.

The suit property was originally standing in the name of
defendant No.1. She does not know that in whose name the
suit properties were standing prior to that she does not know
that Koorappa had a son by name Chikkamunivenkatappa. She
does know that the defendant No.1 was the foster son of
Chikkamunivenkatappa. She does not know that whether
defendant No.1 got any property from Koorappa. She has
denied that the suit properties have been acquired by
defendant No.1 through will. She has denied that suit
properties are not the ancestral properties. She does not know
that the defendant No.1 has not acquired any property through
Koorappa. She has denied that the suit properties were
standing in the name of Chikkamunivenkatappa at the time of
`ling of the suit. She does not know that the properties were
transferred to the name of defendant No.1 after death of
Chikkamunivenkatappa. She has admitted that the wife of
Chikkamunivenkatappa by name Munikempamma is alive. On
going through the documents produced by the plaintiNs Ex.P1
to P7 are the RTCs pertaining to the suit schedule properties.
Ex.P8 and P9 are the copy of Order and Objection `led in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.16/2019 on the `le of Civil Judge
and J.M.F.C., Shidlaghatta. Ex.P12 is the Computerized copy of
Sale Deed dated 05.04.2010, executed by the defendant No.1
and others in favour the defendant No.6.
 12 [Link].294/2009

13. During cross-examination of DW.1 the counsel for

plaintiNs confronted Ex.P10, the RR and Ex.P11, copy of Gift
Deed dated 20.03.2009.

14. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiNs the

defendants got examined defendant No.1 as DW.1. During the
chief-examination DW.1 has deposed in accordance with the
contents of written statement. During the cross-examination
DW.1 has deposed that the plaintiN No.1 has been married to
defendant No.2 from the year 1999. He does not know that
there was no divorce between the plaintiN No.1 and defendant
No.2. He had denied that in the Gift Deed marked as Ex.P11,
he has stated that the said property is a joint family property.
He has further deposed that he is the foster son of
Chikkamunivenkatappa.

15. The defendants have also got examined the

defendant No.7 as DW.2 and in her chief-examination she has
reiterated the averments of her written statement and got
marked Ex.D1, the copy of Will and Ex.D2 to D5, old RTCs
pertaining to some of the suit properties. During the cross-
examination DW.2 has deposed that the defendant No.1 has
sold three properties belonging to her in favour of third party .
The defendant No.1 is the son of Kurappa. They executed will
in favour of defendant No.1 by believing that he will take care
of them. The defendant No.1 did not take care of them and
 13 [Link].294/2009

cheated them. The property shown in Ex.D1 were acquired by

her husband from his brothers.

16. On going through the evidence on record it is

appearing that the plaintiN No.1, claiming to be the `rst wife of
defendant No.2, has `led the present suit seeking partition and
separate possession of the share of plaintiN No.2 and 3 in the
joint family properties. It is the apprehension of the plaintiNs
that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family
properties of the plaintiNs and defendants No.1 to 5. The
plaintiNs have mainly relied upon Ex.P1 to P7, RTCs to show
that those property are the joint family properties. It is
pertinent to note that the plaintiNs have produced the RTCs
pertaining to the year 2008-09 and not opted to produce the
earlier RTCs standing in the name of the ancestors of
defendant No.1. It is the speci`c case of the plaintiNs that the
defendant No.1 has acquired all the suit schedule properties
from his father Koorappa. However, they have not placed even
a single piece of paper to establish the same. The Ex.P8 and
P9 go to show that the plaintiN No.1 has `led Miscellaneous
case against defendant No.2 seeking maintenance and in the
objection the defendant No.2 has clearly admitted that the
plaintiN No.1 is his wife and plaintiNs No.2 and 3 are their
children. It is to be noted that none of the defendants have
denied the relationship between the plaintiNs and defendants
No.1 to 5. Under such circumstances, it is crystal clear that the
 14 [Link].294/2009

plaintiN No.1 is the wife of defendant No.2 and plaintiNs No.2

and 3 are their children.

17. The plaintiNs have got marked Ex.P12, Certi`ed

Copy of Sale Deed standing in the name of defendant No.6. On
careful perusal of the Sale Deed it is appearing that Smt.
Shobhavathi is shown as the wife of the defendant No.2.
Ex.P11 has been confronted to the DW.1 during the cross-
examination and the said documents goes to show that the
defendant No.1 has executed Gift Deed in favour of the said
Shobhavathi. The property involved in Ex.P11 is the suit item
No.7 in this suit. The defendants have taken a contention that
the defendant No.1 being the foster son of
Chikkamunivenkatappa has acquired the suit schedule
properties through registered will of the year 1976. DW.2 has
produced the said will and got marked the Certi`ed Copy as
Ex.D1. On going through contents of the will it is clearly
appearing that the same is executed by the defendant No.7
and her husband Chikkamunivenkatappa jointly. It is clearly
stated in the will that the will shall come into force after the
death of Chikkamunivenkatappa and his wife Munikempamma.
It is pertinent to note that the said Munikempamma is none
other than the defendant No.7 in this suit. After `ling of the
suit she entered her appearance by `ling impleading
application and contended that the Ex.D1 never came into
force as the defendant No.7 is alive till date. She has made
allegations against the defendant No.1 that he has cheated her
 15 [Link].294/2009

by not looking after her after execution of the will. She has
also clearly stated in her written statement as well as in her
chief-examination that the defendant No.1 has illegally got
entered his name in the revenue record in respect of the suit
properties. On careful scrutiny, it is appearing that the suit
item No.1, 4 and 7 are the subject matters of the will. The
plaintiNs themselves got marked Ex.P10 through DW.1, wich
shows that the suit item No.2 property is a self acquired
property of defendant No.1 and the same was purchased by
the defendant No.1 from one Sakamma. The above documents
clearly indicate that the defendant No.1 has not acquired the
suit item No.1, 2 , 4 and 7 through his father Koorappa. The
evidence of DW.2 clearly shows that the Ex.D1 never came
into force and the revenue entries standing in the name of
defendant No.1 are illegal.

18. The plaintiN has also sought for partition of suit

item No.3, 5 and 6. As per section 101 and 103 of Indian
Evidence Act, it is the duty of the plaintiNs to establish that the
suit properties are joint family and ancestral properties.
However, the plaintiNs have not taken pain to obtain the old
RTCs etc, to show that the suit properties were ever standing
in the name of the said Koorappa. They have not produced
even a single piece of paper except RTCs standing in the name
of defendant No.1 to show that those properties are either
ancestral and joint family properties. On careful perusal of the
RTCs produced by the plaintiNs, there are certain entries
 16 [Link].294/2009

regarding mutation proceedings. The plaintiNs are not

bothered to secure those documents from the revenue
authority to place the same before this court. The non
production of required documents, gives adverse inference
against the plaintiNs. On going through the entire evidence on
record coupled with the admissions made by PW.1 it is clear
that the plaintiNs failed to prove that the suit properties are
either ancestral and joint family properties of the family
consisting of the plaintiNs and defendants No.1 to 5 and they
are in joint possession over the same. On the other hand the
defendant No.1 has also failed to prove that he has acquired
some of the suit schedule properties through registered will
dated 02.09.1976, executed by Chikkamunivenkatappa in his
favour. It is appearing that the suit item No.1, 4 and 7 have not
been acquired by the defendant No.1 through will as the
defendant No.7 is still alive. Hence I answer Issue Nos.1 and
5 in the Negative.

19. Issue Nos.2 and 3: The plaintiNs have taken a

contention that the defendant No.2 fell in bad vices and
started neglecting and ill-treating the plaintiNs and contracted
second marriage with one Shobhavathi. They have also
claimed that the defendant No.1 without having right over the
suit schedule properties has executed gift deed in favour of
the said Shobavathi and the said Gift deed is not binding on
the rights and interest of the plaintiNs. It is notice that while
framing the issues my predecessor in oece has wrongly stated
 17 [Link].294/2009

that the defendant No.1 fell in bad vices etc, instead of

defendant No.2. Hence, the same has to be understood has
defendant No.2 instead of defendant No.1. The plaintiN has
produced Ex.P8 and P9, which clearly proved the relationship
between the plaintiNs and defendant No.2. The Ex.P11, the Gift
Deed executed by the defendant No.1 and others in favour of
Shobavathi clearly shows that the said Shobavathi is the wife
of defendant No.2. DW.1 has not denied that the defendant
No.2 married to Shobavathi. The documents and admissions
made by DW.1 and DW.2 clearly show that the defendant No.2
is the husband of plaintiN No.1 and during her lifetime he
married the said Smt. Shobavathi. However, there is no
evidence to show that the defendant No.2 fell in bad vices and
started neglecting the plaintiNs etc. It is evident that the
defendant No.1 has no right over some of the suit properties
including the suit item No.7 to gift the same in favour of Smt.
Shobhavathi during the lifetime of defendant No.7. However,
the plaintiNs have failed to establish that the said property is a
joint family property. Under such circumstances, the plaintiNs
have not proved that the alleged Gift Deed is not binding upon
them. In view of the above discussion I hold that the plaintiNs
have failed to prove the above issues. Hence, I answer Issue
Nos.2 and 3 in the Negative.

20. Issue No.4:- The plaintiNs have claimed that they

have demanded for partition and separate possession of their
legitimate share in the suit properties, but the `rst defendant
 18 [Link].294/2009

refused to meet the demand. As observed supra, the plaintiNs

have failed to establish that the suit properties are the joint
family properties. Under such circumstances, the question of
demanding the legitimate share does not arise. Hence, I
answer Issue No.4 in the Negative.

21. Additional Issue No.1 and 2 framed on

14.10.2020 and Additional Issue framed on 17.06.2022:-
The defendant No.6 being the purchaser of suit item No.4 has
taken a contention that the property purchased by him
originally belonged to one Chikkamunivenkatappa and the said
Chikkamunivenkatappa executed will dated 02.09.1976 in
favour of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 became the
absolute owner of suit item No.4 and alienated the same under
registered Sale Deed dated 05.04.2010 in favour of defendant
No.6. On the other hand, the defendant No.7 has taken a
contention that in the said will it is clearly mentioned that the
same will come into force after death of
Chikkamunivenkatappa and defendant No.7 and the defendant
No.1 has no right to get enter his name in the revenue records
and to dispose of the properties during her lifetime. In this
regard the defendant No.6 has failed to enter into witness box
to prove his contentions and an adverse inference shall be
drawn against him. On the other hand the defendant No.7 has
examined herself as DW.2 and clearly deposed that the
defendant No.1 played fraud upon her and neglected to take
care of her. It is to be noted that the counsel for defendant
 19 [Link].294/2009

No.6 has not opted to cross-examine the DW.2 in this regard.

On careful perusal of Ex.D1, the Certi`ed Copy of the alleged
will dated 02.09.1976, it is appearing that there is a clause in
Ex.D1 that the will shall come into eNect only after death of
Chikkamunivenkatappa and his wife Munikempamma. The said
Munikempamma is alive and subsequently impleaded herself
as defendant No.7 in this suit. In view of her evidence it is
crystal clear that defendant No.1 has not acquired any right
through the alleged will executed by the defendant No.7 and
her husband and the defendant No.1 has no right to alienate
the suit item No.4 property in favour of defendant No.6. It is
settled Principle of law that no one can transfer the better title
than what he is possessing. On the other hand the defendant
No.7 has successfully proved that she is the owner of the
properties involved in Ex.D1 and the same are not yet
transferred to the defendant No.1. Hence, I answer Additional
Issues No.1 and 2 dated 14.10.2020 in the Negative and
Additional Issue dated 17.06.2022 in the A_rmative.

22. Issue No.6:- The plaintiNs have sought for

Partition and Separate Possession of their share in the suit
properties. They have sought for partition of suit schedule
properties and to allot 1/6th share to the second defendant.
They have further sought for 1/3rd share each in the share of
the second defendant. While answering the above issues it is
held that the plaintiNs have failed to prove that the suit
properties are joint family properties. It is also appearing from
 20 [Link].294/2009

the evidence that some of the suit properties are still standing
in the name of the defendant No.7 and the revenue entries
have been eNected in the name defendant No.1 during the
lifetime of defendant No.7, which is illegal. It is also appearing
that the suit item No.2 is a self acquired property of defendant
No.1. The plaintiNs have not produced any iota of evidence to
show that the rest of the suit properties have been acquired by
defendant No.1 from his father Koorappa. In view of this the
plaintiNs are not entitled for Partition and Separate Possession
as sought for. Hence I answer Issue No.6 In the Negative.

23. Issue No.7:- In view of `ndings on above issues

this courts proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The suit of the plaintiN is hereby

dismissed.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, same is

corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th Day of
December,2023).

(SRI. PRAVEEN NAYAK)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C.,
Devanahalli.

*****
 21 [Link].294/2009

ANNEXURE

Witness examined for the PlaintiT/s :

PW.1 - Smt. K.V. Dyavamma

Documents exhibited for the PlaintiT/s :

Exs.P1 to P7 - 7-RTC Extracts

Exs.P8 to P9 - Copy of Order & Objection `led Criminal
Miscellaneous No.16/2019
Ex.P10 - Copy of Record of Right
Ex.P11 - Copy of Gift Deed dated: 20.03.2009
Ex.P12 - Computerized Copy of Register Sale
Deed dated: 05.04.2010
Witnesses examined for the defendant/s:

DW.1 - Sri. Narayanaswamy

DW.2 - Smt. Muni Kempamma
Documents exhibited for the defendant/s:
Ex.D1 - Copy of Register Will
Exs.D2 to D5 - 4- Old RTC Extracts

(SRI. PRAVEEN NAYAK)

Addl. Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C.,
Devanahalli.