IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT

KANAKAPRA
[Link].400 /2025
Plaintiff/s: Marigowda and others

Vs

Defendant/s: Smt .Madamma and others

WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER ORDER 8 RULE 1 OF

C,P,C THE DEFENDANT No.1 BEGS TO SUBMIT AS
FOLLOWS.

1. That the addresses of this defendants as furnished in

the case title of the plaint are not fully correct. The
defendant No.1 is aged about 70 years whereas the
plaintiffs falsely pleaded the age of the 1st defendant
alternatively addresses of this defendants C/o Guru C B,
B V Nagesh and associate Advocates, No.49/50, 2 nd
Cross Konankunte cross ,Bangalore-560062.
2. The allegations made in para-No.3 of the plaint Late.
Sri. Bandikapanigowda S/o. Late. Guligowda, he was the
original propositus, He was married one Smt. Late,
Shivanamma both are dead no more now. They have
got 4 Children's namely, 1st Son of Original propositus
Namely late. Sri. Pandregowda He was married one
Smt. Kempamma both are dead no more now. They
have got 5 Children's namely, 1st Marigowda He is
Plaintiff No.1, herein, 2nd Smt. Parvathamma She was
married, She was died no more now, 3rd Smt.
Puttananajamma She was married, She was died no
more now, 4th [Link] She was married, well
settled in husband house. 5th Nanjundegowda He was
married Simt Kempamma both are dead no more now. They have got
one son Shivanna he was died. He was married Smt. Shivamma She is
plaintiff No.2herein. 2nd son of Original propositus Namely [Link].
Nanjegowda @ Karigowda. He was married Smt. Ankamma both are
dead no more now. They have got 5 Children 1st Karigowda He was
died. He was married Smt. Nanjamma, She is Plaintiff No.3 herein.
2nd Smt. Kempamma She was married, well settled in husband
house. 3rd Smt. Parvathamma She was married, well settled in
husband Smt. Devamma She was married. well settled in band
house, 5th Smt. Naninama She was married, well settled in husband
house, 3rd son of Original Propositus Biligowda he was married Smt
puttamma both are died, no nore now, They have got 4 Children. 1st
Smt. Kempamma She is plaintiff No.4 herein. 2nd Nanjundegiwda he
is plaintiff No.5 herein. 3nd Smt, Kempamma she was married. well
settled in husband house, 4th Smt. Parvathamma She was 10a Tied,
well settled in husband house, 4thson of Original repositus
Bogegowda, he was married one Smt. Devamma both are dead no
more now, they have got 5 children 1st Nanjundegowda He was died
he was married Smt. Madamma She is Defendant No.1 herein. 2nd
Sannappa ( Marigowda He is Defendant No.2 herein. 3rd Smt.
Parvathamma She was married, 4th Daughter Smt. Kempamma She
was married, 5th Daughter Smt. Gowramma she was married, well
settled in husband house, there Misted the status of Hindu Undivided
joint family amongst the Plaintiffs and Defendants, The Plaintiffs and

Defendants, are Hindu by Religion and governed by

Hindu Mithakshara School and Codified Hindu Law
constituting Hindu undivided joint family especially in
the estate and accordingly Plaintiffs and Defendants,
are the Members of such undivided Hindu but not
family. But There is partition is happened between
plaintiffs and defendants long ago after the Death of
Bandi kapinigowda and all plaintiff taken their shares
and Slod their properties to other persons and now
illegally came to Defendants share to clime 3/4 th share
illegally, all the plaintiff has to prove that they are not
taken their share previously and sold their properties to
other persons which are came from his ancestor and all
 other allegation sated in the same para are denied as
false the plaintiffs put to strict proof.
3. The allegations made in para 4 of the plaint , the
original propositus Late. Bandikapanegowda S/o. Late.
Guligowda, is admitted facts owned and but the
defendant no 1 and 2 are in the processioned [Link]
104/12 measuring 00-30guntas, because the suit
scheduled property belong to defendent no 1 and 2
came from the partition ordinally the katha made into
his name, is admitted facts the property situated at
[Link] Village, Maralavadi Hob Harohalli Taluk,
Ramanagara District. which are morefully explained in
the suit schedule written here under and now it is called
and referred to as suit Schedule Property, during his life
time, and now the defendants are in the possession
because the suit scheduled property came partition
after his father Bandi kapani gowda dead the
defendants only in possession and enjoyment of the
same he was died intestate he was no more now, and
left behenic! and Defendants, there are LRs of the
original propositus after that defendants they were
now joint possession and enjoyment of the suit
Schedule Property Hence the defendants only having
the entire rights , and The plaintiffs got their shares and
sold their share of properties to other persons now
plaintiffs illegally came to Defendant shares . after the
death father defendants the plaintiffs and defendants
are got divided and taken equal shares constituted after
the division Hindu joint family members and the
defendants only enjoying the suit schedule properties,
whatever the plaintiffs mention in the plaint are jointly
all are false frivolous, created and concocted by the
plaintiffs for the purpose of this false suit. Hence this
defendant specifically denies them the plaintiffs put to
strict proof.
4. The allegations made in para 5 of the plaint by Plaintiffs
strictly denied and Defendant no 1 submitted that, defendants are in peaceful
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties. The Defendents are
not entitled for their 3/4th share of father of the plaintiff no. 1, 4 and 5 because
already The Plaintiffs taken their his shares and sold that properties to another
person’s of came from Father in law properties, so the plaintiffs not having right
to clime the shares form ,in the suit schedule property which is belongs to the
Defendants which is came from the partition the Plaintiffs and

[Link] of the suit in this score itself the suit

filed by the plaintiffs for alleged partition is not

maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.
5. The allegations made in para 6 of the plaint the after
death of the original propositus one Late. Bandikapanegowda S/o.
Guligowda, behind back of the plaintiffs, Defendants collude each
other’s, they are trying to concoct and create documents of the suit
Schedule Property and by misrepresentation and misleading the
revenue authorities collude each other with revenue officers, illegally
trying to transfer the katha of the suit scheduled property in their
names, dated on 10-02-2025, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants
to effect partition and allot their shares in the suit defeat right of the
plaintiffs, hence filed the suit schedule property but same war not
complied them, and the cause of action for this suit arose on dated
10-02-2025, are not at all true and para no 6 facts not all true so
strictly denies and plaintiff has proven strict proof all suit scheduled
property came to defendants from his ancestor after the partition
between plaintiff and defendants so all other allegations are
utter false hood and make believe story for the purpose
of this false partition suit. Hence these defendants
specifically denied them the plaintiffs put to strict proof
6. There is no cause of action to file this suit as alleged in
para No.7 and 8 of the plaint same invented for the
purpose of this false partition suit. Hence the suit of the
plaintiffs are not maintainable without cause of action.
7. The suit of the plaintiffs are highly speculative and
misconceive and not maintainable either in Law or in
 facts circumstances and probabilities of the case.
Hence same is liable to dismissed,
8. The suit of the plaintiffs for alleged partial partition is
barred by law of limitation.
9. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief sought for in
the plaint,
10. The plaintiffs approached this Hon’ble court with
unclean hands by suppressing the truth.
11. The defendants are here with producing the
documents in next hearing dates relating to their case
same may kindly be read as part and parcel of written
statement to avoid the reputation of facts.
12. All other allegations are not specifically traversed
in the written statement in consistent of the plaint
averments are denied as false.

WHERE FORE: This defendants prays this Hon’ble court may

pleased to dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with exemplary cost
in ends of justice and equity.

DATE: 6/2/2026
Place: Kanakapura
Advocate Defendants 1
VERIFICATION
We the defendants no 1 declare that what is stated above
paras are true and correct to the best of our knowledge belief and
information.

DATE :06/22026
Place:Kanakupa Defendant
no 1
 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
KANAKAPRA
[Link].400 /2025
Plaintiff/s: Marigowda and others

Vs

Defendant/s: Smt .Madamma and others

VERIFIED AFFIDIVIT
I Smt. Madamma D/o. Late. Nanjundegowda, Aged about 56 years, R/at.
Bachahalli Village, [Link] Post, Maralavadi Hobali, Harohalli Taluk,
Ramanagara District, I do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows on
belief of other plaintiffs
1. I am the defendant No.1 in the above case and I am fully
conversant with facts of this case. The averments of the
plaint are denied as false.
 2. The averments of the written statement are true and
correct.
3. I submit that. documents produced in hearing dates along with the all
documents.
4. 1 do here declare and state that this is my name and signature, what is
stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
information and my belief belief of other plaintiff.

Identified by me

Advocate Deponent,
Date :06/2/2026
Place: Kanakapura

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT

KANAKAPRA
[Link].400 /2025
Plaintiff/s: Marigowda and others

Vs

Defendant/s: Smt .Madamma and others

The defendant No.1 begs to file the following objections

to the I.A. U/o 26 Rule 1 of CPC filed by the plaintiffs in
the above case.
[Link] application filed by the plaintiffs are not maintainable
either in law or on facts circumstances and probabilities of the
case. Hence same is liable to be dismissed in lumen.
 2. The plaintiff No.2 sworn to a false affidavit in support of
their application for grant 3/4 th Share of partition the contents of
the affidavits sworn by the plaintiff No.2 are denied as false and
All 5 plaintiffs are taken his shares and sold their Shares of
properties long ago to other persons and now they are came to
The defendants properties to clime 3/4 th share illegally .
3. The written statement filed by the defendants may kindly be
read as part and parcel of this objections statement to avoid the
reputation of facts.
4. The suit filed by the plaintiffs are not maintainable the
question of granting ¾ th share of partition is not arise because
already the plaintiffs taken their share and sold their properties to
another person’s and illegally, they came to Defendants share .
Per contra the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule
properties as on the date of the suit and there is no base to
institution of the partition suit is and asking for their shares
illegally .
5. The defendant 1 submitted that the documents produced by
the plaintiffs are created and manipulated documents for the
purpose this false suit with an intention to knock of valuable
properties of this defendants. Hence the application filed by the
plaintiffs are liable to be dismissed.
6. The plaintiffs have no prime facie case and balance of
convenience not lies in their favour whereas the prime facie case
and balance convenience in favour of this defendants if the
application was dismissed no harm or injury to the other side
suppose the application was allow this defendants will be put to
irreparable loss and injury.
WHERE FORE: The defendants prays this Hon’ble court
may pleased to dismissed the I.A. filed by the plaintiffs with
exemplary cost in ends of justice and equity.

DATE: 6/2/2026
Place:Kanakapura
DEFENDANT no1

Advocate for Defendants