Memorandum of Plaint Under Section 26 Read With Order Vii Rule 1

1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO. ___________/2022
BETWEEN:
Sri. Shivanna,
S/o M. Muniyappa,
aged about 53 years,
Residing at No.70/75,
1st Cross, Kempapura,
Yamalur Post,
Bengaluru-560 037 PLAINTIFF
AND:
1. Smt. Kala
D/o Late Kaverappa,
Aged Major,
R/at Hosahalli village,
Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk.
2. Smt. Usha,
W/o Late Muniswamy,
Aged Major,
3. Sri. Rakshith,
S/o Late Muniswamy,
Major in age,
Defendants No.2 & 3 are

R/at S.J. East Breez,
Vinayakanagar,
Whitefield post,
Bengaluru-560 066
4. Sri. Vijaya Kumar,

S/o Late Thoti Muniswamy,
Major in age,
R/at Sulikunte village,
Dunnasandra Post,
Sarjapura Hobli,
Bengaluru-562 125 DEFENDANTS
2
MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER SECTION 26 READ

WITH ORDER VII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE
The plaintiff in the above case begs to submit as

follows:-
1. The address of the plaintiff for the purpose of

service of all court notices, processes, summons, etc.,
from this Hon’ble court is as set out in the cause title
above and the plaintiff may also be served through his
Counsel Sri. K.K. Manjunath, Advocate, Men In Law
Associates, No.11, 8th Cross, Cubbonpet, Bengaluru-560
002.
2. The address of the defendants for similar purpose

is as set out in the cause title above.
3. The Plaintiff submits that the father of the first

defendant was the absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of the Vacant Site bearing No.90, formed in
Sy. No.123, measuring to the extent of East to West: 60
feet and North to South: 40 feet, totally measuring 2400
Square feet, situated at Sulikunte village, Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk which is morefully described in the
schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the
Suit schedule property.
4. The Plaintiff further submits that, the father of the

first Defendant acquired the Suit Schedule property
through Grant, granted by the Government of Karnataka.
In order to meet legal and domestic necessities the
3
father of the first Defendant offered to sell the suit

Schedule property to the Plaintiff and the plaintiff has
agreed to purchase the same. After mutual negotiations
between father of the first defendant and the Plaintiff the
sale consideration was fixed at Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees
Three Lakhs only). Subsequently father of the first
defendant and the Plaintiff have entered into a Sale
Agreement dated 4-6-2007. At the time of execution of
the Sale Agreement the plaintiff has paid a sum of
Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five
Thousand only) to the father of the first defendant by
way of cash before the witnesses. As per the terms and
conditions of the said Sale Agreement the father of the
first Defendant had agreed to secure the Khatha of the
schedule property into his name and execute the Regd.
Sale Deed in the name of the plaintiff within three
months there from. Thereafter on the request made by
the father of the first defendant, the plaintiff has paid
further advance consideration of Rs.15,000/- on 10-6-
2015 by way of cash, the father of the first defendant has
received and acknowledged the said sum on the back
side of the said Sale Agreement and further requested the
plaintiff to grant some more time to get the Khatha of the
schedule property into his name as there was some
problem in obtaining the Khatha from the Revenue
authorities and again on 10-8-2020 the father of the first
defendant approached the plaintiff and further sought an
amount of Rs.10,000/- to meet his urgent necessities
and also obtain the Katha. Considering the request of the
4
father of the first defendant, the plaintiff has paid the

said sum of Rs.10,000/- to the father of the first
defendant and the father of the first defendant
acknowledged the receipt of said amount by executing a
shara on the back side of the sale Agreement. The
Plaintiff is herewith producing the copy of the Sale
Agreement dated: 4-6-2007 as DOCUMENT NO.1 for
kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
5. The Plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff has paid a

total sum of Rs.2,95,000/- towards advance sale
consideration as his part of contract and agreed to pay
the balance sale consideration to the father of the first
defendant at the time of executing the Regd. Sale Deed.
6. The Plaintiff further submits that, as per the terms

and conditions of the said Sale Agreement there is no
time stipulated for the completion of the sale transaction.
As per the terms and conditions of the Sale Agreement
the plaintiff on several occasions approached and
requested the father of the first Defendant over phone
and also personally to come and execute the Registered
Sale deed in respect of the suit Schedule property by
receiving the balance sale consideration amount and by
producing the relevant documents for the purpose of
Registration upto 10-10-2020. But the father of the first
defendant has been post poning the same on one or the
other pretext. Even after payment of considerable sale
consideration the father of the first defendant failed and
neglected to secure the documents and further failed to
5
execute the Registered sale deed of the suit schedule

property in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance
amount of Rs.5,000/-. Inspite of receipt of substantial
sale consideration amount, the father of the first
defendant failed and neglected to perform her part of the
contractual obligation inspite of Plaintiff’s repeated
requests and demands.
7. The Plaintiff further submits that, on 1-3-2023

when the Plaintiff visited the suit schedule property and
he was shocked to know that the 4 th Defendant is trying
to put up a small petty shop over a portion of the suit
schedule property and upon enquiry made by the Plaintiff
with the 4th defendant with regard to putting up of petty
shop, who inturn given an evasive reply. The Plaintiff
further came to know that the 4th defendant has no any
manner of right, title, interest over the suit schedule
property is putting up illegal construction without having
any documentary permission.
8. The Plaintiff further submits that, the plaintiff got

suspicion and went to inspect the Revenue documents
and enquired in the Sub Registrar office and came to
know that the father of the first Defendant has executed
a Regd. Sale deed dated: 28-7-2008 in favour of the
husband of the 2nd Defendant and father of the third
Defendant Muniswamy vide Regd. Document No. VRT-1-
01723/2008-2009, Book-I, stored in C.D. No.VRTD31
dated: 28-7-2008, before the Office of the Sub Registrar,
Varthur, Bengaluru. Immediately the Plaintiff applied for
6
certified copy of the alleged Sale Deed and obtained the

same on 8-3-2023. Thereafter the Plaintiff tried to
approach the father of the first defendant over the
phone, but the plaintiff was unable to contact him as his
phone was switched off. On further enquiry made by the
plaintiff, in the month of January 2022 the plaintiff
came to know that the father of the first defendant came
to be died in the month of November 2020 itself. As such
the Plaintiff ascertained the details of names and address
of the defendants No.1 to 3 and firstly tried to approach
the first defendant to disclose about the sale transaction
made by the father of the first defendant with the
plaintiff and also about the illegal transaction made by
father of the first defendant, for which the first defendant
has given an evasive reply stating that the first defendant
does not know about the said transaction. As the first
defendant being the only legal heir of Kaverappa and it is
the bound an duty of the first defendant to set right the
illegal sale transactions and further the Plaintiff tried to
approach the Defendants No.2 and 3 who are the L.Rs. of
Muniswamy. but the plaintiff could not able to meet them
personally to inform about the alleged sale transaction. It
is pertinent to mention here that the father of the first
defendant has executed the Sale Agreement with the
Plaintiff for the total consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-, but
on going through the said sale deed that he has sold the
suit property to Late Muniswamy for Rs.3,96,000/-,
which clearly goes to show that the said Kaverappa with
a greedy intention for getting extra amount has made this
7
illegal transaction in order to cheat the plaintiff and to

make illegal gain without cancelling the sale Agreement
made earlier with the plaintiff. The Plaintiff is herewith
producing the copy of the said Sale Deed dated: 28-7-
2008 as DOCUMENT NO.2 for kind perusal of this
Hon’ble court.
9. The Plaintiff further submits that the Plaintiff is

always ready and willing to perform his part of the
contractual obligation by keeping ready with the balance
sale consideration amount. But the first Defendant
failed and neglected to execute the Registered Sale Deed
in respect of the suit schedule property in the name of
the Plaintiff or his nominee in terms of the Sale
Agreement. As the Plaintiff is/was always ready and
willing to perform his part of the contractual obligation
and also ready with the balance sale consideration
amount, as the father of the first defendant with a
dishonest intention in order to get wrongful gain and
cause wrongful loss to the Plaintiff fraudulently executed
a registered sale deed in respect of the schedule property
in favour of the husband of the 2nd Defendant and father
of the third Defendant that too during the subsistence of
the Sale Agreement dated: 4-6-2007 entered into between
the father of the first defendant and the plaintiff. Hence,
the said sale deed is a created, concocted and sham
document, the same is not enforceable in the eye of law
and further the same is not binding on the plaintiff. All
the efforts made by the Plaintiff in convincing the first
8
defendant to perform her part of the contractual

obligation were went in vain.
10. The Plaintiff further submits that, inspite of the

efforts made by the plaintiff in convincing the first
defendant to perform her part of the contractual
obligation were went in vain as she has steped into the
shoes of Late Kaverappa as his only legal heir and further
the Plaintiff tried to contact Late Muniswamy in the sale
deed address, but he could not trace out any information
about the said Muniswamy. Hence the plaintiff having no
other alternative got issued a legal notice dated 19-4-
2023 to the defendants through RPAD after ascertaining
the names and addresses of the Defendants No.2 and 3.
The notice sent to the Defendants have been returned
with a postal shara “Insufficient address”. Though the
Defendants are very much residing in the cause title
address have managed to avoid the service of legal
notices. The Plaintiff is herewith producing the copy of
the Legal Notice, Postal Receipts 4 Nos, Returned RPAD
covers- 4 Nos as DOCUMENTS NO. 3 to 11 for kind
perusal of this Hon’ble court.
11. The plaintiff submits that knowing about the

issuance of the legal notice, the defendants No. 2 and 3
are making secret negotiations with the prospective
purchasers to alienate the suit schedule property in
favour of third parties. The said fact came to the
knowledge of the plaintiff through Real Estate Agents in
the locality on 5-5-2023. Hence having no other
9
alternative and efficacious remedy available to the

plaintiff is filing this suit for specific performance of the
Contract.
13. The cause of action for the suit arose on 8-3-2023

when the Plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the
alleged sale deed and on 19-4-2023 when the Plaintiff
got issued the legal notice and again on 5-5-2023 when
the plaintiff came to know about the secrete sale
negotiations of the Defendants No.2 & 3 in respect of
the suit schedule property with the prospective
purchasers and subsequently on all the dates within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.
14. The plaintiff has not filed any other suit on the
same cause of action before any court of law and there is
no pendency of any suit in respect of the suit schedule
property within the knowledge of the plaintiff.
15. For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the

plaintiff has filed a separate valuation slip along with the
plaint.
Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble court

be pleased to pass Judgment and Decree against the
defendant as follows:-
a) directing the Defendants No.1 to 3 jointly and

severally to execute the register the Sale Deed
in favour of the plaintiff in terms of the Sale
Agreement dated: 4-6-2007 by receiving the
10
balance sale consideration from the plaintiff in

respect of the suit schedule property.
b) On failure of the Defendants No.1 to 3 to

execute the Sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in
respect of the suit schedule property, this Hon’ble
court may be pleased to pass an order, permitting
the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale
consideration amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five
only) in court and to execute the Registered Sale
Deed of the suit schedule property through
process of law on behalf of the defendants No.1 to
3 in favour of the plaintiff and deliver the
physical possession of the suit schedule property
to the plaintiff.
c) To declare that the Regd. Sale Deed executed by
the father of the first defendant in favour of the
father of the Defendants No.2 to vide Reg.
Document No. VRT-1-01723/2008-2009, Book-I,
stored in C.D. No.VRTD31 dated: 28-7-2008,
before the Office of the Sub Registrar, Varthur,
Bengaluru as null and void and not binding on
the Plaintiff;
d) Grant an order of Permanent Injunction
restraining the defendant No.4 his agents,
henchmen, G.P.A. Holder or any body acting
under or through him from interfering with the
suit schedule property.
11
e) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble

court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of
the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the Vacant Site bearing
No.90, formed in Sy. No.123, measuring to the extent of
East to West: 60 feet and North to South: 40 feet, totally
measuring 2400 Square feet, situated at Sulikunte
village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, bounded
on the:
East by: House belongs to Venkataswamy
West by: Road,
North by: House belongs to Ramaiah
South by: Road and thereafter house of Vijaya Kumar
South by: Site No.29
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF PLAINTIFF

VERIFICATION
I, the Plaintiff above named do hereby verify and
state that what is stated above from para-1 to 15 are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief.
Bengaluru
Dated: PLAINTIFF
12

O.S.NO. ___________/2022
BETWEEN:
Sri. Shivanna, PLAINTIFF
AND:
Smt. Kala & others DEFENDANTS
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, Shivanna, S/o M. Muniyappa, aged about 53 years,

Residing at No.70/75, 1st Cross, Kempapura, Yamalur Post,
Bengaluru-560 037, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on
oath as follows:
1. I am the plaintiff in the above case and I know the facts

of the case, that I am deposing to.
2. I submit that I have filed the above suit against the

defendants No.1 to 3 for Specific performance of the Sale
Agereement.
2. I submit that the statements made in para 1 to 15 of the

accompanying plaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge belief and information.
3. I submit that the documents produced along with list

are the Original and true copies.
I verify that this is my name and signature and the

contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
Identified by me,
Advocate DEPONENT
Bengaluru
Date:
No.of corrections
13

O.S.NO. ___________/2022
BETWEEN:
Sri. Shivanna,
S/o M. Muniyappa,
1st Cross, Kempapura,
Yamalur Post,
AND:
1. Smt. Kala
D/o Late Kaverappa,
Aged Major,
R/at Hosahalli village,
Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk.
2. Smt. Usha,
W/o Late Muniswamy,
Aged Major,
3. Sri. Rakshith,
S/o Late Muniswamy,
Major in age,

R/at S.J. East Breez,
Vinayakanagar,
Whitefield post,
Bengaluru-560 066
4. Sri. Vijaya Kumar,

S/o Late Thoti Muniswamy,
Major in age,
R/at Sulikunte village,
Dunnasandra Post,
Sarjapura Hobli,
14
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH

SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying

affidavit, the plaintiff above named prays that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant an ex-parte order
of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants No.
2 and 3, their agents, attorney holders or any body
acting under or through them from alienating or
encumbering the suit schedule property in favour of third
parties, pending disposal of the above suit as the matter
is urgent in nature, dispense with issue of notice, in the
interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the Vacant Site bearing
No.90, formed in Sy. No.123, measuring to the extent of
East to West: 60 feet and North to South: 40 feet, totally
measuring 2400 Square feet, situated at Sulikunte
village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, bounded
on the:
East by: House belongs to Venkataswamy

West by: Road,
North by: House belongs to Ramaiah
South by: Road and thereafter house of Vijaya Kumar
South by: Site No.29
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF

Bengaluru
Date:
15

O.S.NO. ___________/2022
BETWEEN:
AND:
AFFIDAVIT
I, Shivanna, S/o M. Muniyappa, aged about 53
years, Residing at No.70/75, 1st Cross, Kempapura,
Yamalur Post, Bengaluru-560 037, do hereby solemnly
affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I am the plaintiff in the above case and I know the

facts of the case, that I am deposing to.

defendants No.1 to 3 for Specific performance of the Sale
Agereement. I submit that the averments made in the
plaint may kindly be read as part and parcel of this
affidavit to avoid repetition of facts.
3. I submit that the father of the first defendant was

the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the
Suit schedule property, he acquired the Suit Schedule
property through Grant, granted by the Government of
Karnataka. In order to meet legal and domestic
necessities the father of the first Defendant offered to
sell the suit Schedule property to me for Rs.3,00,000/-
(Rupees Three Lakhs only). Subsequently father of the
16
first defendant executed a Sale Agreement dated 4-6-

2007 in favour of me. At the time of execution of the Sale
Agreement I have paid a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand only) to the father of
the first defendant by way of cash. The father of the first
Defendant had agreed to secure the Khatha of the
schedule property into his name and execute the Regd.
Sale Deed in my name within three months. Thereafter
on the request made by the father of the first defendant, I
have paid further advance consideration of Rs.15,000/-
on 10-6-2015 and a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 10-8-2020
by way of cash, the father of the first defendant has
received and acknowledged the said sum on the back
side of the said Sale Agreement thus, I have paid total
sum of Rs.2,95,000/- to the father of the first defendant
and further requested me to grant some more time to get
the Khatha of the schedule property into his name from
the Revenue authorities.
4. I submit that, as per the terms and conditions of

the said Sale Agreement there is no time stipulated for
the completion of the sale transaction, however on
several occasions I approached and requested the father
of the first Defendant to execute the Registered Sale
deed in respect of the suit Schedule property in my
name by receiving the balance sale consideration amount
and by producing the relevant documents for the purpose
of Registration. But the father of the first defendant has
been post poning the same on one or the other pretext.
17
Inspite of receipt of substantial sale consideration

amount, the father of the first defendant failed and
neglected to perform her part of the contractual
obligation. I submit that when such being the state of
affairs on 8-3-2023 I came to know that the father of
the first Defendant has executed a Regd. Sale deed
dated: 28-7-2008 in favour of the husband of the 2 nd
Defendant and father of the third Defendant Muniswamy.
Immediately I tried to contact over the phone, but I was
unable to contact him as his phone was switched off. On
further enquiry I came to know that the father of the
first defendant came to be died in the month of November
2020 itself. As such I approached the first defendant
and disclosed about the sale transaction made by the
father of the first defendant with me for which the first
defendant has given an evasive reply. As the first
defendant being the only legal heir of Kaverappa and it is
the bound an duty of the first defendant to set right the
illegal sale transactions. I submit that the father of the
first defendant has executed the Sale Agreement in my
favour for the total consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-, but
he has sold the suit property to Late Muniswamy for
Rs.3,96,000/-, which clearly goes to show that the said
Kaverappa with a greedy intention in order to cheat me
for illegal gain.
5. I further submits that, on 1-3-2023 when I visited

the suit schedule property I was shocked to know that
the 4th Defendant is trying to put up a small petty shop
18
over a portion of the suit schedule property and upon

enquiry the 4th defendant, who inturn given an evasive
reply.
6. I further submits that I am always ready and

willing to perform my part of the contractual obligation
by keeping ready with the balance sale consideration
amount. But the first Defendant failed and neglected to
execute the Registered Sale Deed in respect of the suit
schedule property in my name. All the efforts made by
me in convincing the first defendant to perform her part
of the contractual obligation were went in vain.
7. I further submits that, hence having no other

alternative I got issued a legal notice dated 19-4-2023 to
the defendants through RPAD after ascertaining the
names and addresses of the defendants No.2 and 3. The
notices sent to the Defendants have been returned with
a postal shara “Insufficient address”. Though the
Defendants are very much residing in the cause title
address have managed to avoid the service of legal
notices.
8. I submit that knowing about the issuance of the

legal notice, the defendants No. 2 and 3 are making
secret negotiations with the prospective purchasers to
alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third
parties. The said fact came to my knowledge through
Real Estate Agents in the locality on 5-5-2023. As I am
apprehending danger at the hands of the defendants
No.2 and 3 that they may at any moment sell away the
suit schedule property behind my back. Hence this
19
application for grant of ex-parte ad-interim order of

Temporary injunction against the defendants No.2 and 3
restraining them from alienating or encumbering the
suit schedule property in favour of third parties. I have
got a prima-facie case and the balance of convenience lies
in my favour by allowing the accompanying application.
9. I submit that if this application is allowed no

hardship will be caused to the defendant, on the other
hand, if it is not allowed I will be put to irreparable loss,
injury and justice will suffer.
Wherefore, I respectfully pray that this Hon’ble
court be pleased to allow the annexed application as
prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity.
I, the deponent herein do hereby declare that this is

my left hand thumb impression, and the contents of this
affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
belief and information.
Identified by me,
Advocate. DEPONENT
Bengaluru
Date:
20

O.S.NO. ___________/2022
BETWEEN:
AND:
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 14-A OF THE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
The plaintiff above named states that the address

furnished in the Statement made under Sub-Rule (1)
shall be called the ‘Registered Address’ of the parties and
the address mentioned in the cause title of the plaint be
deemed to be the address of the parties for the purpose of
service of all processes in the suit and shall hold good for
the final determination of the cause or matter, in the
ends of justice.
Bengaluru
Date:
21

O.S.NO. ___________/2022
BETWEEN:
AND:
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF
1. Copy of the Sale Agreement

2. Copy of the Regd. Sale Deed
3. Copy of the Legal Notice
4. Copy of the Postal Receipts
5. Copy of the Corrigendum Notice
6. Copy of the returned RPAD covers
Bengaluru
Date: ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF
22

O.S.NO. ___________/2022
BETWEEN:
AND:
VALUATION SLIP
Serial No. The clause of The amount of Method adopted Valuation

of the Sec. 7(2) of Revenue or to arrive at the arrived at
Property the other basis for valuation
in Plaint Karnataka valuation
Schedule Court Fees
and Suits
Valuation
Act, 1958
under which
the property
comes.
1 2 3 4 5
One This suit is for
Schedule the relief of
Specific
performance of
the contract.
The total Sale
consideration is
Rs.3,00,000/-
accordingly the
Plaintiff has
paid the court
fee under
Section 40 of
KCF & SV Act
Total Rs.
Bengaluru
23

O.S.NO. ___________/2022
BETWEEN:
AND:
INDEX
Sl. Particulars Pages Court
No. Fee
1. Memorandum of Plaint Under order
VII Rule-1 Read with Sec.26 of Code
of Civil Procedure
2. Verifying Affidavit
3. Statement Under order VI Rule-14-A
4. Valuation Slip
5. List of Documents with documents
6. Vakalath
7. I.A. No.I Under Order 39 Rule-1 & 2
of CPC.
8. Second Set of Plaint
9. Process Memo and copy to the
defendants
Bengaluru
Date ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF
24
25
26
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DIST. AT BENGALURU
F.D.P. NO.27/2017
IN
O.S. NOL.1270/2006
BETWEEN:
Smt. Gowramma PETITIONER
AND:
Sri.Ramanjinappa
And others RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 26 RULE 9 READ WITH

SECTION 151 OF THE COEE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Affidavit, the petitioner above named prays that this
Hon’ble court be pleased to appoint below mentioned as
Court Commissioner to measure the properties, fix the
boundaries of the respective shares of the parties in
respect of the suit Schedule properties and to report the
same before this Hon’ble court, in the above case, in the
Court Commissioner
The Tahsildar,
Bengaluru East Taluk,
K.R. Puram,
Bangalore -560 036
Bangalore
Date: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
27
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DIST. AT BENGALURU
F.D.P. NO.27/2017
IN
O.S. NOL.1270/2006
BETWEEN:
Smt. Gowramma PETITIONER
AND:
Sri.Ramanjinappa
AFFIDAVIT
I, Smt. Gowramma, D/o Late Erappa, wife of
Siddappa, aged about 71 years, residing at Hirandahalli
village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I submit that I am the Petitioner in the above case

and I know the facts of the case, that I am deposing to.
2. I submit that, I have filed the suit bearing O.S.

No.1270/2006, on the file of this Hon’ble Court, same is
came to be decreed as per Judgment and Decree dated
27-1-2016 as per the said Decree I am entitle for my
legitimate share as per the Judgment and decree passed
by this Hon’ble court in all the plaint schedule properties
by metes and bounds.
3. I submit that, after passing of the Judgment and

decree by this Hon’ble court, the Respondents have not
preferred any appeal against the Judgment and decree
28
nor I have received any summons from the appellate

court sofar.
4. I submit that inspite of the Judgment and decree

the Respondents have not come forward to divide the
suit Schedule properties and allot my legitimate share as
per the Judgment and decree, hence it is just and
necessary to appoint a court Commissioner to measure
and fix the boundaries of the shares as ordered in the
original suit. Hence this application.
5. I submit that If this application is allowed, no

hardship or injury will be caused to the respondents,
on the other hand if it is not allowed I will be put to
greater hardship, irreparable injury and justice will
suffer.
Wherefore, I pray that this Hon’ble court may be

pleased to allow the annexed application as prayed for, in
the interest of justice and equity.
I, verify that this is my name and signature and the

contents of this affidavit is true to the best of my
knowledge, belief and information.
Identified by me,
Advocate, DEPONENT
Bangalore
Date:
No. of corrs
29
30
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.__________/2022
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Pradeep Naidu,

S/o Sri. Lakshmipathi Naidu,
residing at No.690/1,
Siddareddy Colony,
Near Balajia Enclave,
Doddanekkundi,
Bengaluru-560 037
2. Sri. Jagadish Vasudeva Singh,

Aged about 40 years,
S/o Sri. Vasudeva Singh,
residing at 2nd Floor,
Kishan Castle, 1st Cross,
Raghuram Reddy Layout,
Doddanekkundi,
Marathahalli Colony,
Bengaluru-560 037 PLAINTIFFS
AND:
1. Smt. A. Anusuyamma @
A. Anusuya,
D/o Late Muniswamy @
Abbaiah Reddy,
Residing at No.2, Outer Ring Road,
Vijaya Bank Colony,
Banaswadi,
31
Benglauru-560 043
2. Sri.P. Manjunath Reddy,
S/o Late Papaiah reddy,
R/at No.537, 10th B-Main Road,
Next to Rasbin Fancy Store,
Near Doddabanaswadi Bus Stop,
Bengaluru-560 042
3. Sri. S. Mohan Lal,

S/o Late G.Sukhraj,
4. Sri. Anup,
S/o S. Mohan,

R/at No.64, Arunachalam
Mudaliyar Street,
Seppings Road Cross,
Shivajinagar,
MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE

1 READ WITH SEC. 26 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE
The Plaintiffs above named submit as follows:
1. The address of the Plaintiffs for the purpose of issue

of court notice from this Hon’ble court are as stated in
the Cause title above. The Plaintiffs can also be served
through their Counsels Sri. K.K. Manjunath & Sri. Sidde
Gowda, Advocates, Men In Law Associates, No.11, 8 th
Cross, Cubbonpet, Bengaluru-560 002.
2. The address of the Defendants for the similar

purpose is as set out in the Cause title.
32
3. The Plaintiffs submit that the first Defendant is the

absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the
immovable Property bearing Site No.5, Property
No.114/2A, situated at Horamavu, Krishnarajapura
Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, erstwhile Bengaluru South
Taluk, now coming under the jurisdiction of Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru, measuring
East to west: 61 feet and North to South: (62+59)/2 feet,
in all measuring 3660 Square feet, which is morefully
described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter
referred to as suit Schedule Property.
4. The Plaintiffs submits that the first defendant

acquired the suit schedule property through Final
Decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru in R.F.A. No.541/1998 and the same has been
registered as Document No. 5792/2019-2020, Book-I,
stored in C.D. No.BNSD-805 dated 1-7-2019, registered
in the office of the Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar
(Banaswadi), Bengaluru. The Plaintiffs are herewith
producing the Registered Decree passed in RFA.
No.541/1998 as DOCUMENT NO.1 for kind perusal of
this Hon’ble court.
5. The Plaintiffs further submit that the first

defendant in order to meet her legal and domestic
necessities offered to sell the suit Schedule Property to
Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs have agreed to purchase the
same. After mutual negotiations between the Plaintiffs
33
and the first defendant the sale consideration was fixed

at Rs.2,04,05,000/- (Rupees Two Crores, Four Lakhs
Five Thousand only) and the Plaintiffs have also agreed to
purchase the suit schedule property for the said sale
consideration amount. Subsequently the Plaintiffs and
the first defendant have entered into a Registered Sale
Agreement dated 28-6-2021, the same is registered as
Document No. KRI-1-01484/2021-2022, stored in C.D.
No. KRID-1246, Book-I, dated 28-6-2021 in the office of
the Additional Sub Registrar, Shivajinagara
(Krishnarajapuram), Bengaluru. At the time of execution
of the registered Sale Agreement the Plaintiffs have paid
a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to
the first defendant in the following manner:
a) Rs.5,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing
No.429134 dated: 27-4-2021, drawn on State Bank
of India, Doddanekkundi Branch, Bengaluru;
b) Rs.5,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing
No.429135 dated: 27-4-2021, drawn on State Bank
of India, Doddanekkundi Branch, Bengaluru
c) Rs.5,00,000/- by way of demand draft bearing
No.552642 dated: 28-6-2021, drawn on IndusInd
Bank, Marathahalli Branch, Bengaluru
All the Demand Drafts are drawn in favour of the first

defendant and the first defendant has received and
acknowledged the above said advance sale consideration
amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) in
the manner stated supra and the Plaintiffs have agreed to
34
pay the balance sale consideration amount of

Rs.1,89,05,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Nine Lakhs
Five Thousand only) to the first defendant at the time of
execution of the Registered Sale Deed of the suit schedule
property in the name of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff is
herewith producing the copy of the Regd. Sale Agreement
as DOCUMENT NO.2 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble
court.
6. The Plaintiffs further submit that, as per the terms

and conditions of the said Regd. Sale Agreement the time
stipulated for completion of sale transaction is six
months, on several ccasions the Plaintiffs have
approached and requested the first defendant over phone
and also personally to come and execute the Registered
Sale deed in respect of the suit Schedule Property by
receiving the balance sale consideration amount and also
by producing the relevant documents for the purpose of
Registration. But the first defendant has been post
poning the same on one or the other reasons for the
reasons best known to her in not executing the
Registered sale deed in the name of the Plaintiffs.
7. The Plaintiffs submit that the plaintiffs were/are

always ready and willing to perform their part of the
contractual obligation by keeping ready with the balance
sale consideration amount as they have already kept
Loan sanction approval letter from the Bank. But the first
defendant has failed to perform her part of the
contractual obligation to come forward to execute the
35
Registered Sale Deed in respect of the suit Schedule

Property in the names of the Plaintiffs or their nominees.
Inspite of giving sufficient opportunity, the first
defendant has been post poning to perform her part of
the contractual obligation, since the time for completion
of sale transaction was about to complete. As the
Plaintiffs always ready and willing to perform their part
of the contractual obligation as per the terms and
conditions of the Regd. Sale Agreement and also by
keeping ready with the balance sale consideration
amount.
8. The Plaintiffs further submit that, when such being

the state of affairs, the Plaintiff got issued legal notice
dated: 27-12-2021, calling upon the first defendant to
come and execute the Registered sale deed of the suit
schedule property in favour of the Plaintiffs by receiving
the balance sale consideration amount. But the said
notice has been returned unserved with a postal shara
“Addressee not found”. The Plaintiff is herewith
producing the copy of the Legal Notice, Postal Receipt
and Returned RPAD cover as DOCUMENTS NO.3 to 5 for
kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.
9. The Plaintiffs further submit that, suspecting the

attitude and conduct of the first Defendant, the Plaintiffs
approached the office of jurisdictional Sub Registrar,
verified the records and obtained the Encumbrance
certificate for the period from 1-4-2004 to 12-4-2022, on
perusal of the encumbrance the Plaintiffs were shocked
36
and surprised to know that the name of the Defendant

No.2 is reflecting and further the Plaintiffs came to know
that the Defendant No.2 has obtained the Regd. Sale
Deed dated 6-10-2018 into his as a G.P.A. Holder of the
first defendant vide Document No. BNS-1-11722/2018-
19, Book-I, stored in C.D. No.BNSD670 dated 15-10-
2018, registered in the office of the Sub Registrar,
Shivajinagara (Banaswadi), Bengaluru. On perusal of the
said Deed, the Defendant No.2 got the Regd. Sale Deed
into his name only as GPA holder of first Defendant. The
said document does not disclose the sale consideration
passed on to the first defendant. As such the said
document is a sham and void ab-initio and does not have
any legal validity. The 2nd defendant has obtained the
Regd. Sale deed much before the first defendant got right
over the suit schedule property i.e. prior to passing of the
Decree dated 1-7-2019 as stated supra. The Plaintiffs
are herewith producing the certified copy of the said Sale
Deed as DOCUMENT NO.6 for kind perusal of this
Hon’ble court.
10. The Plaintiffs further submit that, on the basis of

the alleged Sale Deed, the 2nd Defendant has let out the
suit schedule property in favour of the Defendant No.3
under a Registered Agreement of Lease dated: 25-1-2019,
which is registered as Document No. HLS-1-
05686/2018-19, stored in C.D. No. HLSD179, Book-I,
registered in the office of the sub Registrar, Shivajinagara
(Ulsoor), Benglauru. The Plaintiffs are herewith
37
producing the certified copy of the said Agreement of

Lease as DOCUMENT NO.7 for kind perusal of this
Hon’ble court.
11. The Plaintiffs further submit that, the 2nd defendant

has also executed a Registered Sale agreement dated 2-7-
2021 in favour of the Defendant No.4 vide Regd.
Document No. BNS-1-02537/2021-22, Book-I, stored in
C.D. No. BNSD1289, registered in the office of the Sub
Registrar, Shivajinagara (Banaswadi), Benglauru. The 4th
defendant is none other than the son of the Defendant
No.3. The Plaintiffs are herewith producing the certified
copy of the said Sale Agreement and Encumbrance
Certificate from 1-4-2004 to 12-4-2022 as DOCUMENT
NO.8 & 9 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.
12. The Plaintiffs further submit that, all these

documents goes to show that the Defendants by
colluding with each other have created the above said
alleged illegal and sham documents in order deprive the
Plaintiffs right over the suit property by playing fraud.
13. The Plaintiffs further submit that, on the guise of

the alleged documents the Defendant No.1 & 2 are
making hectic efforts to alienate the suit schedule
property in favour of the Defendant No.4 on the basis of
the said bogus documents illegally and unlawfully. Hence
the Plaintiffs apprahanding danger at the hands of the
Defendants No.1 and 2 that at any moment they may
38
create sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property,

as the Plaintiffs can not resist the illegal acts of the
defendants No.1 and 2 without the aid and assistance at
the hands of this Hon’ble court. In this regard the
Plaintiffs approached the jurisdictional Police, but the
Police have pleaded their inability to help in the matter,
since the dispute between the Plaintiffs and the
defendants is civil in nature and advised the Plaintiffs to
approach the competent civil court for necessary reliefs.
Along with the Plaint the Plaintiffs have also filed an
applications Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C. for
grant of Temporary Injunction, restraining the
Defendants No.2 from alienating the suit schedule
property in favour of the 4th defendant or any body and
also restrain the Defendants No.2 and 4 from changing
the nature and character of the suit schedule Property.
Hence this suit.
14. The cause of action for the suit arose on 27-12-

2021 when the plaintiffs got issued the Legal Notice to
the first Defendant, on 13-4-2022 when the Plaintiffs
obtained the E.C. from the Sub Registrar office for filing
the Specifific performance suit against the first defendant
and further when the Plaintiffs came to about the alleged
sale transactions and subsequently on all dates within
the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
15. The suit schedule property is situated within the

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and hence this Hon’ble
Court can try the matter.
39
16. The plaintiffs have filed a separate Valuation slip

for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.
17. There is no pendency of any other legal proceedings

and litigations either past or present concerning any
part of subject matter of the suit on the same cause of
action in any court within the knowledge of the
plaintiffs.
Wherefore, the plaintiffs humbly pray that this

Hon’ble court be pleased to pass Judgment and decree
against the defendant as under:-
a) To grant an order of Permanent Injunction,

restraining the defendants No.1 & 2, their agents,
attorney holders or any body acting through or
under them from alienating or encumbering the
Suit schedule property in favour of the Defendant
No.4 or his nominee, his agents, representatives or
in favour of any body during the subsistence of the
Regd. Sale Agreement dated:28-6-2021 executed by
the first defendant in favour of the Plaintiffs.
b) To grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble court

deems fit to grant under the facts and
circumstances of the case with court costs, in the
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
40
All that piece and parcel of the immovable Property

bearing Site No.5, Property No.114/2A, situated at
Horamavu, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru East
Taluk, erstwhile Bengaluru South Taluk, now coming
under the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike, Bengaluru, measuring East to west: 61 feet and
North to South: (62+59)/2 feet, in all measuring 3660
Square feet, and bounded on the:
East by: Site No.6 & 7 belongs to Mr. Jalendar Reddy

and Mrs.Gowramma
West by: 20 feet wide Road,
North by: Site No.4 belongs to Mrs. Jayalakshmamma
South by: 150 Feet Ring Road.
1.
2.
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS

VERIFICATION
We, the Plaintiffs herein, do hereby declare that

what is stated above from paras 1 to 17 are true to the
best of our knowledge, belief and information.
1.
2.
PLAINTIFFS
Bengaluru
Date:
41

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.__________/2022
BETWEEN:
Sri. Pradeep Naidu

And another PLAINTIFFS
AND:
Smt. A. Anusuyamma @
A. Anusuya & others DEFENDANTS
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, Sri. Pradeep Naidu, aged about 45 years, S/o Sri.
Lakshmipathi Naidu, residing at No.690/1, Siddareddy
Colony, Near Balajia Enclave, Doddanekkundi,
Bengaluru-560 037, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state on oath as follows:
1. I submit that I am the first plaintiff in the above

case and I know the facts of the case, hence I am
swearing to this affidavit on my behalf and also on behalf
of 2nd Plaintiff who authorized me to swear to this
affidavit.
2. I submit that the averments made para 1 to 17 of

the accompanying plaint are true to the best of my
3. I submit that the documents produced along with

the Plaint are the Certified copies & Originals.
42

contents of this affidavit is true.
Identified by me,
Advocate, DEPONENT
Bengaluru
Dated:
JUDGE AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.__________/2022
BETWEEN:

Siddareddy Colony,
Doddanekkundi,
Bengaluru-560 037

Doddanekkundi,
AND:
A. Anusuya,
Abbaiah Reddy,
Vijaya Bank Colony,
Banaswadi,
43
Benglauru-560 043
Bengaluru-560 042

S/o Late G.Sukhraj,
4. Sri. Anup,
S/o S. Mohan,

Mudaliyar Street,
Shivajinagar,
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 READ

WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE

affidavit, the plaintiffs/applicants above named pray that
this Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant an ad-interim
order of Temporary Injunction against the defendant No.1
& 2, their agents, attorney holders or any body acting
under or through them from alienating or encumbering
the suit schedule property in favour of the Defendant
No.4 or his nominee or in favour of any body, pending
disposal of the above suit, in the interest of justice and
equity.
44
SCHEDULE PROPERTY


and Mrs.Gowramma
Bengaluru
Date: ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS
45

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.__________/2022
BETWEEN:
Sri. Pradeep Naidu

AND:
AFFIDAVIT

affidavit.
46
2. I submit that the averments made in the

accompanying plaint may kindly be read as part and
parcel of this affidavit in order to avoid repetition of facts.
3. I submit that the first Defendant is the absolute

owner suit Schedule Property, she acquired the suit
schedule property through Final Decree passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R.F.A.
No.541/1998 and the same has been registered as
Document No. 5792/2019-2020, Book-I, stored in C.D.
No.BNSD-805 dated 1-7-2019, registered in the office of
the Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar (Banaswadi), Bengaluru.
4. I submit that the first defendant in order to meet

her legal and domestic necessities offered to sell the suit
Schedule Property to me and 2nd plaintiff and we have
between us and the first defendant the sale
consideration was fixed at Rs.2,04,05,000/- (Rupees Two
Crores, Four Lakhs Five Thousand only) and the we have
also agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for
the said sale consideration amount. Subsequently the
ourselves and the first defendant have entered into a
Registered Sale Agreement dated 28-6-2021. At the time
of execution of the registered Sale Agreement we have
paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs
only) to the first defendant through Demand draft and
cash and the first defendant has received and
amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only)
47
and we agreed to pay the balance sale consideration

amount of Rs.1,89,05,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty
Nine Lakhs Five Thousand only) to the first defendant at
the time of execution of the Registered Sale Deed.
5. I further submit that, as per the terms and

conditions of the said Regd. Sale Agreement the time
months, on several ccasions we approached and
requested the first defendant over phone and also
personally to come and execute the Registered Sale deed
in respect of the suit Schedule Property by receiving the
balance sale consideration amount and also by producing
the relevant documents for the purpose of Registration.
But the first defendant has been post poning the same
on one or the other reasons for the reasons best known
to her in not executing the Registered sale deed as
were/are always ready and willing to perform our part
of the contractual obligation by keeping ready with the
balance sale consideration amount as we have already
kept Loan sanction approval letter from the Bank. But
the first defendant has failed to perform her part of the
Property in our names. Inspite of giving sufficient
opportunity, the first defendant has been post poning to
perform her part of the contractual obligation, hence, we
got issued legal notice dated: 27-12-2021, calling upon
the first defendant to come and execute the Registered
48
sale deed of the suit schedule property in our favour by

receiving the balance sale consideration amount. But the
said notice has been returned unserved with a postal
shara “Addressee not found”.
6. I of the first Defendant, the Plaintiffs approached

the office of jurisdictional Sub Registrar, verified the
records and obtained the Encumbrance certificate for the
period from 1-4-2004 to 12-4-2022, on perusal of the
encumbrance we were shocked and surprised to know
that the name of the Defendant No.2 is reflecting and
further we came to know that the Defendant No.2 has
obtained the Regd. Sale Deed dated 6-10-2018 into his as
a G.P.A. Holder of the first defendant. The said document
does not disclose the sale consideration passed on to the
first defendant. As such the said document is a sham
and void ab-initio and does not have any legal validity.
The 2nd defendant has obtained the Regd. Sale deed
much before the first defendant got right over the suit
schedule property i.e. prior to passing of the Decree
dated 1-7-2019 as stated supra.
7. I further submit that, on the basis of the alleged

Sale Deed, the 2nd Defendant has let out the suit
schedule property in favour of the Defendant No.3 under
a Registered Agreement of Lease dated: 25-1-2019, and
further the 2nd defendant has also executed a Registered
Sale agreement dated 2-7-2021 in favour of the
Defendant No.4. The 4th defendant is none other than the
son of the Defendant No.3. I submit that all these
49

alleged illegal and sham documents in order deprive our
right over the suit property by playing fraud.
8. I further submit that, on the guise of the alleged

documents the Defendant No.1 & 2 are making hectic
efforts to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of
the Defendant No.4 on the basis of the said bogus
documents illegally and unlawfully. Hence we are
apprahanding danger at the hands of the Defendants
No.1 & 2 that at any moment they may create sale deed
in respect of the suit schedule property, as we can not
resist the illegal acts of the defendants No.1 & 2 without
the aid and assistance at the hands of this Hon’ble court.
In this regard we approached the jurisdictional Police,
but the Police have pleaded their inability to help in the
matter, since the dispute is civil in nature and advised us
to approach the competent civil court for necessary
reliefs. Hence this application.
9. I have made out a prima facie case for a fair trial.

The balance of convenience lies in my favour. In case, the
defendants No.1 & 2 aliente or encumber the suit
property in favour of Defendant No.4 or in favour of any
third party, in such an event I will be put to irreparable
loss and injury which can not be compensated in terms
of money.
50

hardship will be caused to the defendants, on the other
hand if it is not allowed we will be put to great hardship,
irreparable injury and justice will suffer.
Wherefore, I pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased

to allow the annexed application as prayed for, in the
contents of this affidavit is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, belief and information.
Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate,
Bengaluru
Date:
51

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.__________/2022
BETWEEN:

Siddareddy Colony,
Doddanekkundi,
Bengaluru-560 037

Doddanekkundi,
AND:
A. Anusuya,
Abbaiah Reddy,
52

Vijaya Bank Colony,
Banaswadi,
Benglauru-560 043
Bengaluru-560 042

S/o Late G.Sukhraj,
4. Sri. Anup,
S/o S. Mohan,

Mudaliyar Street,
Shivajinagar,

PROCEDURE

affidavit, the plaintiffs/applicants above named pray that
this Hon’ble court may be pleased to grant an ad-interim
order of Temporary Injunction against the defendant No.1
& 2, their agents, attorney holders or any body acting
under or through them from changing the nature of the
suit schedule property, pending disposal of the above
suit, in the interest of justice and equity.
53
SCHEDULE PROPERTY


and Mrs.Gowramma
Bengaluru
54

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.__________/2022
BETWEEN:
Sri. Pradeep Naidu

AND:
AFFIDAVIT

affidavit.
55
2. I submit that the averments made in the

accompanying plaint may kindly be read as part and
parcel of this affidavit in order to avoid repetition of facts.
3. I submit that the first Defendant is the absolute

owner suit Schedule Property, she acquired the suit
schedule property through Final Decree passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in R.F.A.
No.541/1998 and the same has been registered as
Document No. 5792/2019-2020, Book-I, stored in C.D.
No.BNSD-805 dated 1-7-2019, registered in the office of
the Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar (Banaswadi), Bengaluru.
4. I submit that the first defendant in order to meet

her legal and domestic necessities offered to sell the suit
Schedule Property to me and 2nd plaintiff and we have
between us and the first defendant the sale
consideration was fixed at Rs.2,04,05,000/- (Rupees Two
Crores, Four Lakhs Five Thousand only) and the we have
also agreed to purchase the suit schedule property for
the said sale consideration amount. Subsequently the
ourselves and the first defendant have entered into a
Registered Sale Agreement dated 28-6-2021. At the time
of execution of the registered Sale Agreement we have
paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs
only) to the first defendant through Demand draft and
cash and the first defendant has received and
amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only)
56
and we agreed to pay the balance sale consideration

amount of Rs.1,89,05,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty
Nine Lakhs Five Thousand only) to the first defendant at
the time of execution of the Registered Sale Deed.
5. I further submit that, as per the terms and

conditions of the said Regd. Sale Agreement the time
months, on several ccasions we approached and
requested the first defendant over phone and also
personally to come and execute the Registered Sale deed
in respect of the suit Schedule Property by receiving the
balance sale consideration amount and also by producing
the relevant documents for the purpose of Registration.
But the first defendant has been post poning the same
on one or the other reasons for the reasons best known
to her in not executing the Registered sale deed as
were/are always ready and willing to perform our part
of the contractual obligation by keeping ready with the
balance sale consideration amount as we have already
kept Loan sanction approval letter from the Bank. But
the first defendant has failed to perform her part of the
Property in our names. Inspite of giving sufficient
opportunity, the first defendant has been post poning to
perform her part of the contractual obligation, hence, we
got issued legal notice dated: 27-12-2021, calling upon
the first defendant to come and execute the Registered
57
sale deed of the suit schedule property in our favour by

receiving the balance sale consideration amount. But the
said notice has been returned unserved with a postal
shara “Addressee not found”.
6. I of the first Defendant, the Plaintiffs approached

the office of jurisdictional Sub Registrar, verified the
records and obtained the Encumbrance certificate for the
period from 1-4-2004 to 12-4-2022, on perusal of the
encumbrance we were shocked and surprised to know
that the name of the Defendant No.2 is reflecting and
further we came to know that the Defendant No.2 has
obtained the Regd. Sale Deed dated 6-10-2018 into his as
a G.P.A. Holder of the first defendant. The said document
does not disclose the sale consideration passed on to the
first defendant. As such the said document is a sham
and void ab-initio and does not have any legal validity.
The 2nd defendant has obtained the Regd. Sale deed
much before the first defendant got right over the suit
schedule property i.e. prior to passing of the Decree
dated 1-7-2019 as stated supra.
7. I further submit that, on the basis of the alleged

Sale Deed, the 2nd Defendant has let out the suit
schedule property in favour of the Defendant No.3 under
a Registered Agreement of Lease dated: 25-1-2019, and
further the 2nd defendant has also executed a Registered
Sale agreement dated 2-7-2021 in favour of the
Defendant No.4. The 4th defendant is none other than the
son of the Defendant No.3. I submit that all these
58

alleged illegal and sham documents in order deprive our
right over the suit property by playing fraud.
8. I further submit that, on the guise of the alleged

documents the Defendant No.1 & 2 are making hectic
efforts to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of
the Defendant No.4 on the basis of the said bogus
documents illegally and unlawfully and also they have
already marking in order to lay foundation over the suit
schedule property. Hence we are apprahanding danger at
the hands of the Defendants No.1 & 2 that at any
moment they may put up construction and they may
claim equity over the suit schedule property, as we can
not resist the illegal acts of the defendants No.1 & 2
without the aid and assistance at the hands of this
Hon’ble court. In this regard we approached the
jurisdictional Police, but the Police have pleaded their
inability to help in the matter, since the dispute is civil in
nature and advised us to approach the competent civil
court for necessary reliefs. Hence this application.
9. I have made out a prima facie case for a fair trial.

The balance of convenience lies in my favour. In case, the
defendants No.1 & 2 aliente or encumber the suit
property in favour of Defendant No.4 or in favour of any
third party, in such an event I will be put to irreparable
loss and injury which can not be compensated in terms
of money.
59

hand if it is not allowed we will be put to great hardship,
irreparable injury and justice will suffer.
Wherefore, I pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased

to allow the annexed application as prayed for, in the

my knowledge, belief and information.
Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate,
Bengaluru
Date:
60

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.__________/2022
BETWEEN:
Sri. Pradeep Naidu

AND:
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 14-A OF

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

ends of justice.
1.
2.

61
Bengaluru
Date:

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.__________/2022
BETWEEN:
Sri. Pradeep Naidu

AND:
7. Copy of the Registered Decree passed in RFA

No.541/1998
8. Certified copy of the Regd. Sale Agreement dated:
28-6-2022
10. Copy of the Postal Receipt
11. Copy of the Returned RPAD cover
12. Copy of the Regd. Sale Deed dated: 15-10-2018
Bengaluru
62

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.__________/2022
BETWEEN:
Sri. Pradeep Naidu

AND:
VALUATION SLIP

Schedule Court Fees
and Suits
Valuation
Act, 1958
under which
the property
comes.
1 2 3 4 5
One Not This suit is for
Schedule applicable, On the basis of the relief of
suit for KCF & SV. Act Permanent Rs.25-00
Permanent Injunction. For
Injunction the purpose of
court fee & suit
valuable, the
suit is valued at
Rs.1,000/- and
fixed court fee
is paid on the
Plaint as per
Section 26(c) of
the KCF & SV.
Act.
63
Total Rs. 25-00
Bengaluru

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.__________/2022
BETWEEN:
Sri. Pradeep Naidu

AND:
INDEX
No. Fee
1. Memorandum of Plaint Under
order VII Rule-1 Read with Sec.26
of Code of Civil Procedure
3. Statement Under order VI Rule-
14-A
4. Valuation Slip
5. List of Documents with
documents
6. Vakalath
7. I.A. No.I & II Under Order 39
Rule-1 & 2 of CPC along with
64
Affidavits
9. Process Memo and copies to the
defendants
Bengaluru
Date ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS
65
66

JUDGE AT ANEKAL
O.S.NO. ___________/2021
BETWEEN:
Sri. Naresh.N.
S/o A. Narayan Reddy,
Residing at No.106,
Koramangala Main Village,
AND:
1. Sri.Ramesh Babu.H.S.
S/o Subba Rao.H.
2. Smt. Sathya Lakshmamma,

W/o Ramesh Babu. H.S.
3. Sri. Murali Krishna,

S/o Ramesh Babu.H.S.
All are residing at No.73,

Ward No.4, Near Lakshmi
Talkies, Muniyappa Layout,
Shivakumarswamy Road,
Anekal Town,
Bengaluru Urban District. DEFENDANTS
67
MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER SECTION 26

READ WITH ORDER VII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE
The plaintiff in the above case begs to submit as

follows:-

above and the plaintiff may also be served through his
Counsel Sri. K.K. Manjunath, Advocates, Men In Law
002.
2. The address of the defendantS for similar purpose

3. The Plaintiff submits that the defendant are the

absolute owners of the land bearing Sy. No.33/1, New Sy.
No.33/8, measuring to an extent of 20.08 guntas,
situated at Amani Doddakere village, Kasaba Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, having acquired the same under the
Partition. The Pahani and Mutation in respect of the said
land stands in the name of first Defendant, the said
property is more fully described in the schedule
hereunder and hereinafter referred to as Suit Schedule
Property.
4. The plaintiff submits that, the Defendants in order

to meet their legal and domestic necessities offered to
sell the suit schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff
68
and the Plaintiff has agreed to purchase the Suit

Schedule Property. After mutual negotiations between
the plaintiff and the defendants, the sale consideration of
the schedule property was fixed at Rs.18,45,000/-
(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Forty Five Thousand only).
Subsequently the plaintiff and the defendants have
entered into a Registered Sale Agreement dated 31-3-
2017 and the same is registered as Document No. ANK-
1-08012/2016-17, Book-I, stored in C.D. No. ANKD418
dated 31-3-2017, registered in the office of the Senior
Sub Registrar, Anekal. At the time of execution of the
registered Sale Agreement and subsequent date the
Plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten
Lakhs only) towards advance sale consideration amount
to the defendants as detailed below:
a) Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by way of

Cheque bearing No.244670 dated 31-3-2017, drawn on
UCO Bank, Koramangala Branch, Bengaluru;
b) Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by way of

Cheque bearing No.006032 dated 31-1-2018, drawn on
Axis Bank, Bengaluru;
The defendants have received and acknowledged the

above said advance sale consideration amount of Rs.
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) from the
plaintiff in the manner stated supra. The Plaintiff is
herewith producing the Registered Sale Agreement,
Certified copy of Partition Deed, RTC & Mutation Extract
and Registered Sale Agreement as DOCUMENT NO.1, 2
69
& 3 series (RTC & Mutation extracts) for kind perusal

of this Hon’ble Court.
5. The Plaintiff further submits that, the defendants

have agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of
Rs.8,45,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Five Thousand
only) at the time of registration of sale Deed and further
the Defendants have agreed to effect the Phodi from the
concerned authorities and further agreed to secure all
the relevant documents as relating to the suit schedule
Property for the purpose of legal opinion and registration
of the Sale Deed as it was a condition precedent in the
sale Agreement.
6. The Plaintiff further submits that, as per the terms

and conditions of the said Regd. Sale Agreement the time
stipulated for the completion of the sale transaction is
within 3 months from the date of phodi of the suit
schedule property and obtaining of relevant documents
like RTC and Mutation for the purpose of registration of
sale deed. Further the defendants have agreed to furnish
the documents on or before 10-1-2021 and the execution
of the Reg. Sale Deed shall be completed on 25-3-2021.
7. The Plaintiff further submits that as per the terms

and conditions of the Sale Agreement the plaintiff on
several occasions approached and requested the
defendants over phone and also personally to come and
execute the Registered Sale deed in respect of the
schedule property by receiving the balance sale
70
consideration amount of Rs.8,45,000/- (Rupees Eight

Lakhs Forty Five Thousand only) and by producing the
relevant documents such as Geneological Tree issued by
the Tahsildar, Katha, Tax paid Receipt, Upto date
encumbrance certificate and such other relevant
documents for the purpose of Registration of Sale Deed.
But the defendants have been post poning the same on
one or the other reasons for the reasons best known to
the defendants in not executing the Registered sale deed
within the stipulated period and the defendants have
failed and neglected to furnish the relevant documents
to the plaintiff for the purpose of registration and further
the defendants have failed and neglected to perform their
part of the contractual obligation, in terms of the
Registered Sale Agreement.
8. The Plaintiff further submits that, the plaintiff is

always ready and willing to perform his part of the
contractual obligation as per the terms and conditions of
the Registered Sale Agreement by keeping ready with the
balance sale consideration amount of Rs.8,45,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Five Thousand only), since the
Plaintiff has already paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
through Cheques and the same are encashed by the
Defendant, which shows that the Plaintiff has performed
his part of the contract. But the defendants have failed
to perform their part of the contractual obligation to
come forward to execute the Registered Sale Deed in
respect of the suit schedule property in the name of the
71
plaintiff or his nominee. The Plaintiff is herewith

producing the bank Pass Books as DOCUMENT NO.4 &
5 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.
9. The Plaintiff further submits that, inspite of the

efforts made by the plaintiff in convincing the defendants
to perform their part of the contractual obligation were
went in vain. Hence the plaintiff having no other
alternative got issued a legal notice dated 30-3-2021 to
the defendants, calling upon them to come and execute
the Registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by
receiving the balance sale consideration amount of
Rs.8,45,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Five Thousand
only). The said Notices have been sent to the defendants
by R.P.A.D. but all the notices have been returned un-
served with a postal shara “No such Person”. Even
though the Defendants are very much residing in the
cause title address by colluding with the postal
authorities have managed to send back the RPAD covers
intentionally and deliberately with an intention to cheat
and defraud the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is herewith
produces the copy of the Legal Notice, Postal Receipts
and Returned RPAD covers as DOCUMENTS NO. 6 to 12
for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
10. The plaintiff submits that knowing about the

issuance of the legal notice, the defendants are making
secret negotiations with the prospective purchasers to
parties. The said fact came to the knowledge of the
72
plaintiff through Real Estate Agents in the locality on 24-

9-2021. In this regard on 24-9-2021 the plaintiff lodged a
complaint against the Defendants before the
jurisdictional Police Station, the police have not taken
any action. Hence having no other alternative and
efficacious remedy available to the plaintiff is filing this
suit for specific performance of the Contract.

2021 when the defendant has failed executed the
Registered Sale Agreement in favour of the plaintiff in
respect of the suit schedule property and on 30-3-2021
when the plaintiff got issued the legal notice to the
defendants and on 24-9-2021 when the plaintiff came to
know about the secret sale negotiations of the defendants
with the prospective purchasers and on the same day the
Plaintiff lodged the complaint and subsequently on all
the dates within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.

plaint.
Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble

court be pleased to pass Judgment and Decree against
the defendant as follows:-
73
f) directing the defendants to execute the register

the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of
the Regd. Sale Agreement dated 31-3-2017 by
receiving the balance sale consideration from the
plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property.
g) On failure of the defendants to execute the Sale

deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the
suit schedule property, this Hon’ble court may be
pleased to pass an order, permitting the plaintiff
to deposit the balance sale consideration amount
of Rs.8,45,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty five
thousand only) in court and to execute the
Registered Sale Deed of the suit schedule
property through process of law on behalf of the
defendants in favour of the plaintiff and deliver
the physical possession of the suit schedule
property to the plaintiff.
h) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.
No.33/1, New Sy. No.33/8, measuring to an extent of
20.08 guntas, situated at Amani Doddakere village,
Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, bounded on the:
East by: Land belongs to Kavala Hosahalli Sanjeev Reddy

West by: Kaluve
North by: Land belongs to Haligappa & Srinivas in Sy. No.33/1
74
South by: Land bearing Sy. No.32.
VERIFICATION
I, the Plaintiff above named do hereby verify and
state that what is stated above from para-1 to 13 are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and
belief.
Anekal
Dated: PLAINTIFF
75

JUDGE AT ANEKAL
O.S.NO. ___________/2021
BETWEEN:
Sri. Naresh.N. PLAINTIFF
AND:
Sri.Ramesh Babu.H.S.
And two others DEFENDANTS
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, Naresh.N. Aged about 48 years, S/o A. Narayan

Reddy, Residing at No.106, Koramangala Main
Village,Bengaluru-560 095, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as follows:

facts of the case, that I am deposing to.
2. I submit that the statements made in para 1 to 13

of the accompanying plaint are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge belief and information.

list are the copies.

contents of this affidavit are true.
Identified by me,
Advocate DEPONENT
76
Anekal
Date:
No.of corrections

JUDGE AT ANEKAL
O.S.NO. ___________/2021
BETWEEN:
Sri. Naresh.N.
S/o A. Narayan Reddy,
Residing at No.106,
Koramangala Main Village,
AND:
1. Sri.Ramesh Babu.H.S.
S/o Subba Rao.H.
2. Smt. Sathya Lakshmamma,

W/o Ramesh Babu. H.S.
3. Sri. Murali Krishna,

S/o Ramesh Babu.H.S.
All are residing at No.73,

Ward No.4, Near Lakshmi
Talkies, Muniyappa Layout,
Shivakumarswamy Road,
Anekal Town,
Bengaluru Urban District. DEFENDANTS
77

PROCEDURE

of temporary injunction, restraining the defendants,
their agents, attorney holders or any body acting under
or through them from alienating or encumbering the suit
schedule property in favour of third parties, pending
disposal of the above suit as the matter is urgent in
nature, dispense with issue of notice, in the interest of
justice and equity.
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.
No.33/1, New Sy. No.33/8, measuring to an extent of
20.08 guntas, situated at Amani Doddakere village,
Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, bounded on the:
East by: Land belongs to Kavala Hosahalli Sanjeev Reddy

West by: Kaluve
North by: Land belongs to Haligappa & Srinivas in Sy. No.33/1
South by: Land bearing Sy. No.32.

Anekal
Date:
78

JUDGE AT ANEKAL
O.S.NO. ___________/2021
BETWEEN:
AND:
AFFIDAVIT
I, Naresh.N. Aged about 48 years, S/o A. Narayan

Reddy, Residing at No.106, Koramangala Main
Village,Bengaluru-560 095, do hereby solemnly affirm

facts of the case, that I am deposing to. I submit that the
averments made in the plaint may kindly be read as part
and parcel of this affidavit to avoid repetition of facts.
2. I submit that the defendants are the absolute

owner of the Suit Schedule Property. The defendant had
acquired the schedule property under the partition. The
79
RTC and Mutation in respect of the suit Schedule

property are standing in the name of the first defendant.
3. I submit that due to the family and legal

necessities, the defendants have offered to sell the Suit
Schedule property in my favour for the valuable sale
consideration of Rs.18,45,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs
Forty Five Thousand only). I also agreed to purchase the
schedule property for the said sale consideration and I
have paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs
only) to the defendant by way of Cheques towards
advance sale consideration and the said cheques have
been encashed by the Defendant. After receiving the said
advance sale consideration the defendants have has
executed an Regd. Agreement of Sale in my favour. As
per the terms and conditions of the Sale Agreement the
defendants have agreed and undertaken to execute the
Registered Sale Deed in favour of me within the
stipulated period of three months from the date of
execution of the said Sale Agreement by receiving the
balance sale consideration amount of Rs.8,45,000/-
(Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Five Thousand only). Further
the defendants have agreed to furnish the Revenue
documents of the suit property for the purpose of
registration.
4. I submit that prior to the expiry of stipulated period,

on several occasions I approached the defendants and
demanded them to execute the Registered Sale Deed in
my favour by receiving the balance sale consideration
80
amount by producing all the relevant documents. But the

defendants have been postponing the same on one or the
other reasons for the reasons best known to them. As per
the terms and conditions of the Regd. Sale Agreement I
am always ready and willing to perform my part of the
contractual obligation by keeping ready the balance sale
consideration, but the defendants have failed and
neglected to perform their part of the contractual
obligation in terms of the Sale Agreement dated 31-3-
2017 in executing the registered sale deed in my favour.
5. I submit that in view of non performance of the

contractual obligation by the defendants I got issued a
legal notice dated 30-3-2021, calling upon the defendants
to come and execute the Registered sale deed in my
favour in terms of the Sale Agreement by producing the
relevant documents for the purpose of registration. The
notice was sent through RPAD but the defendants
avoided to receive the said notice and hence the same are
returned un-served though the defendants are very much
residing in the cause title address.
7. I submit that on coming to know about the issuance

of the legal notice the defendants are making secret
sale negotiations with the prospective purchasers to
parties. The said fact came to my knowledge through
Real Estate Agents in the locality on 24-9-2021 and on
the same day I lodged a complaint before the
jurisdictional Police Station and the police have not taken
81
any action in the matter. As I am apprehending danger

at the hands of the defendants, that the defendants may
at any moment sell away the suit schedule property
behind my back. Hence this application for grant of ex-
parte ad-interim order of Temporary injunction against
the defendants restraining them from alienating or
encumbering the suit schedule property in favour of
third parties. I have got a prima-facie case and the
balance of convenience lies in my favour by allowing the
accompanying application.

hand, if it is not allowed I will be put to irreparable loss,
injury and justice will suffer.

I, the deponent herein do hereby declare that this is

my left hand thumb impression, and the contents of this
affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
belief and information.
Identified by me,
Advocate. DEPONENT
Anekal
Date:
82

JUDGE AT ANEKAL
O.S.NO. ___________/2021
BETWEEN:
AND:


ends of justice.

83
Anekal
Date:

JUDGE AT ANEKAL
O.S.NO. ___________/2021
BETWEEN:
AND:
13. Copy of the Registered Sale Agreement dated 31-

3-2017
14. Certified copy of the Partition Deed of the
defendant
15. Copy of the RTC & M.R. Extract
16. Bank pass book -2 Nos.
18. Copy of the Postal Receipts
19. Copy of the returned RPAD covers
Anekal
84

JUDGE AT ANEKAL
O.S.NO. ___________/2021
BETWEEN:
AND:
MEMO FOR SAFE CUSTODY OF ORIGINAL

DOCUMENTS
The Plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble Court be

pleased to keep the following original documents in safe
custody of this Hon’ble Court.
1. Original Registered Sale Agreement dated 31-3-

2017
2. Office Copy of the Legal Notice
3. Original Postal Receipts
4. Original returned RPAD covers
Anekal
85

JUDGE AT ANEKAL
O.S.NO. ___________/2021
BETWEEN:
AND:
VALUATION SLIP

Schedule Court Fees
and Suits
Valuation
Act, 1958
under which
the property
comes.
1 2 3 4 5
One This suit is for
Schedule the relief of
Specific
performance of
the contract.
The total Sale
consideration is
Rs.18,45,000/-
accordingly the
Plaintiff has
paid the court
fee under
Section 40 of
86
KCF & SV Act
Total Rs.
Anekal

JUDGE AT ANEKAL
O.S.NO. ___________/2021
BETWEEN:
AND:
INDEX
No. Fee
1. Memorandum of Plaint Under
order VII Rule-1 Read with Sec.26
of Code of Civil Procedure
3. Statement Under order VI Rule-
14-A
4. Valuation Slip
5. List of Documents with
documents
6. Vakalath
7. I.A. No.I Under Order 39 Rule-1 &
87
2 of CPC.
9. Process Memo and copies to the
defendants
Anekal
88
89
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR

DIVISION) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU
O.S. NO.676/2010
BETWEEN:
Mr. M. Sandeep
AND:
Sri. Kempaiah &

Others DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 22 RULE (4) READ

WITH SECTION 151 OF C.P.C.

affidavit, the Plaintiffs in the above case pray that this
Hon’ble court be pleased to permit the plaintiffs to bring
90
the below mentioned legal representatives of the deceased

Defendant No.1 Sri. Kempaiah and Defendant No.5 Sri.
Dyavappa on record as Defendants No.1(a) to 1(e) and
Defendants No.5(a) to 5(g) in place of deceased
Defendants No.1 & 5 on record, in the interest of justice
and equity.
PROPOSED LEGAL REPRESENTTIVES OF DECEASED

DEFENDANT 1 AS DEFENDANT NO.1(a) to 1(e)
1(a) Smt. Muniyamma,

W/o Late Kempaiah,
Aged about years,
1(b) Sri. Shankar,

S/o Late Kempaiah,
Aged about years,
1(c) Sri. Srinivasa,

S/o Late Kempaiah,
Aged about years,
1(d) Sri. Narayana,

S/o Late Kempaiah,
Aged about years,
1(e) Smt. Ahalya

D/o Late Kempaiah,
Aged about years,
Defendants No.1(a) to (e)

Are residing at Old No.63,
New No.1208, 1st Floor, 5th Cross,
7th Main, K.N. Extension,
Yeswanthapura,
Bengaluru-560 022.
PROPOSED LEGAL REPRESENTTIVE OF DECEASED

DEFENDANT 5 AS DEFENDANT NO.5(a)
91
5(a) Smt. Akkayamma,

W/o Late Dyavappa,
Aged about years,
Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District-562 114,
.
Bengaluru

BENGALURU
O.S. NO.676/2010
BETWEEN:
Mr. M. Sandeep
AND:
Sri. Kempaiah &

Others DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, M. Sandeep, S/o Late Munivenkataramanappa,

aged about 43 years, residing at No. 981, III Stage, 4 th
Cross, New Thippasandra, Bengaluru-560 075, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
92

case and I know the facts of the case. The 2nd Plaintiff is
my sister. I have been authorized by the 2nd Plaintiff to
swear to this affidavit. I am competent to swear to this
affidavit. I request this Hon’ble court to read the
averments of the plaint as part and parcel of this affidavit
to avoid repetition of facts.
2. I submit that we have filed the above suit against

the defendants for the relief of partition and separate
possession, declaration declaring that the alleged
partition deed bearing Document No.3437/2001-02
dated 8-2-2002, registered in the office of the Sub
Registrar, Hoskote, is not binding on our shares in
respect of the suit schedule properties and for such other
reliefs.
3. I submit that after institution of the above case this

Hon’ble court was pleased to issue suit summons and
emergent notice to the defendants and they have
appeared before this Hon’ble court and contesting the
case. During the pendency of the above suit the first
Defendant Sri. Kempaiah died on 8-10-2018 leaving
behind his wife and children who are the Defendants
No.1(a) to 1(d) as his legal heirs and successors to
succeed to his estate. Similarly the Defendant No.5
Dyavappa also died on leaving behind his wife
Smt. Devamma who is the defendant No.5(a) as his legal
heir and successor to succeed to his estate, the children
93
of the deceased Defendant No.5 are already on record,

the said fact came to my knowledge only when the
Counsels for the defendants No.1 & 5 filed Memo,
reporting the death of the deceased Defendants No.1 & 5.
4. I submit that the, prior to filing of Memos I was

unaware of the death of Defendants No.1 & 5, hence it
has caused some delay in filing the above application to
bring the L.Rs. on record. The delay in filing the above
application is neither intentional nor deliberate but due
to the above said bonafide reasons. The L.Rs. of the
deceased Defendants No.1 & 5 are the proper and
necessary parties in order to adjudicate the above matter
effectively and to deliver the justice. Hence this
application.
5. I submit that the Legal representatives of the
Deceased Defendants No.1 and 5 are very much
necessary and proper parties to the above suit to
adjudicate the matter effectually, hence I may be
permitted to bring them on record in place of deceased
Defendants No.1 and 5 to proceed with the matter on
merits.
6. I submit that if this application is not allowed

myself and 2nd plaintiff will be put to great hardship and
irreparable injury, on the contrary no hardship or
prejudice would be caused to the defendants in any
manner.
94
Wherefore, I respectfully prays that this Hon’ble

court may be pleased to allow the annexed application as
I, verify that this is my name and signature, the

contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge, belief and information.
Identified by me,
Advocate, DEPONENT
Bengaluru
Date:

BENGALURU
O.S. NO.676/2010
BETWEEN:
Mr. M. Sandeep
AND:
Sri. Kempaiah &

Others DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXII RULE 9 OF THE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

affidavit, the Plaintiffs pray that this Hon’ble court be
pleased to set aside the abatement if any in filing the L.R.
95
application to bring the Legal Representatives of the

deceased Defendants No.1 & 5 on record, in the interest
of justice and equity.
Bengaluru

BENGALURU
O.S. NO.676/2010
BETWEEN:
Mr. M. Sandeep
AND:
Sri. Kempaiah &

Others DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT

96


reliefs.

97


effectively and to deliver the justice.

adjudicate the matter effectually, hence it is just and
necessary to set aside the abatement if any in filing the
above application. Hence this application.

myself and 2nd plaintiff will be put to great hardship and
irreparable injury, on the contrary no hardship or
prejudice would be caused to the defendants in any
manner.
98


Identified by me,
Advocate, DEPONENT
Bengaluru
Date:

JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.976/2017
BETWEEN:
Sri. Lakshminarayanaswamy PLAINTIFF
AND:
Smt. Nanjamma
And others DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE

LIMITATION ACT

affidavit, the Plaintiffs above named most humbly pray
99
that this Hon’ble court be pleased to condone the delay if

any in filing the L.R. application of deceased Defendants
No.1 & 5, in the interest of justice and equity.
Bengaluru

BENGALURU
O.S. NO.676/2010
BETWEEN:
Mr. M. Sandeep
AND:
Sri. Kempaiah &

Others DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT

100



reliefs.

101


effectively and to deliver the justice. Hence this
application.
adjudicate the matter effectually, hence it is just and
necessary to condone the delay if any in filing the L.Rs.
application. Hence this application.
6. I submit that if this application is not allowed I will

be put to great hardship and irreparable injury, on the
contrary no hardship or prejudice would be caused to the
defendants in any manner.
102


Identified by me,
Advocate, DEPONENT
Bengaluru
Date:
103
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, MAYO

HALL UNIT AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. Pavithra.K. PLAINTIFF

AND:
104
Smt. Venkatalakshmamma
MEMO
The Plaintiff in the above case respectfully prays

that this Hon’ble court be pleased to withdraw the above
suit as not pressed, in the interest of justice and equity.

Bengaluru
Date: 19-11-2020
105

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
AND:
APPLICATION UNDER SEC. 151 OF THE CODE OF

CIVIL PROCEDURE

affidavit, the Plaintiff in the above case most
106
respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

advance the above case from 8-12-2020 to today i.e. on
19-11-2020 to consider the Memo for withdrawal of the
above suit, in the interest of justice and equity.
Bengaluru
Date: 19-11-2020 ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
AND:
AFFIDAVIT
I, Smt. Pavithra.K. W/o Manjunath.C.S. Aged about

36 years, R/at No.209, 3rd Cross, 2nd Main,
107
Channasandra, Banaswadi Post, Bengaluru-560 043, do

1. I submit that I am the plaintiff in the above case

and I know the facts of the case, hence I am swearing to
this affidavit.

Defendant for the relief of Permanent Injunction and for
such other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule
property.
3. I submit that after filing of the above suit due to

some problems I am not interested to proceed with the
above suit and hence I am intending to file a Memo for
withdrawal of the above suit. In order to consider the
Memo it is just and necessary to advance the above case
from 8-12-2020 to today. Hence this application.
4. I submit that if this application is not allowed, I will

be put to untold hardship and inconvenience, on the
other hand no harm or hardship would be caused to the
other side if the application is allowed.
Wherefore I most humbly pray that this Hon’ble

Court be pleased to allow the accompanying application
as prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity.
I, the deponent herein, do hereby verify and state

that this is my name and signature and the contents of
108
this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my

Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate
Bangalore
Date: 19-11-2020

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
AND:
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 13 RULE-9 READ WITH

SEC. 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
109

affidavit, the Plaintiff in the above case most
respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
order for return of original documents which are
produced in the above case, in the interest of justice and
equity.
Bangalore
Date: 19-11-2020 ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
AND:
AFFIDAVIT
110
I, Smt. Pavithra.K. W/o Manjunath.C.S. Aged about

36 years, R/at No.209, 3rd Cross, 2nd Main,
Channasandra, Banaswadi Post, Bengaluru-560 043, do
1. I submit that I am the plaintiff in the above case

and I know the facts of the case, hence I am swearing to
this affidavit.

Defendants for the relief of Permanent Injunction and for
such other reliefs in respect of the suit schedule
property.
3. I submit that after filing of the above suit due to

some problems I am not interested to proceed with the
above suit and hence I have filed a Memo for withdrawal
of the above suit and accordingly this Hon’ble court
dismissed the above suit.
4. I submit that at the time of filing of the above suit I

have produced the original documents in support of my
case. That in view of the withdrawal of the above matter,
this Hon’ble court is no more require the said original
documents. Now I require the original documents
produced by me for my custody.
5. I submit that under the above said facts and

circumstances, it is just and necessary for this Hon’ble
court to to order for return of the original documents.
Hence this application.
111
6. I submit that if this application is not allowed I

will be put to great hardship and inconvenience, on the
other hand if the same is allowed no harm or prejudice
would be caused to the defendant.


Identified by me,
Advocate
Bangalore DEPONENT
Date: 19-11-2020
No.of Corrs.
112
113

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. T. Lalitha,
W/o Late Srinath,
Aged major,
Residing at No.35,
Cashier Layout,
2nd Cross, Thavarekere,
Bengaluru.
Rep. by her G.P.A. Holder

Smt. P. Lalithamma
wife of K. Veera Reddy,
residing at No.540,
Bannahalli Village,
Ramaiah Layout,
Chandapura Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District-560 099 PLAINTIFF
AND:
1. Karmikara Raithara Vasathi

Nirmana Sahakara Sangha Ltd.,
No.92, 1st Floor, Bull Temple Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru-560 018.
Rep. by it’s Secretary
2. Sri.D.H.Ananda Rao,
S/o Late Hanumantha Rao,
R/at C/o M/S. Karmikara
Raithara Vasathi Nirmana
Sahakara Sangha Ltd.,
Chamarajpet,
114
Benglauru-560 018.
3. Smt.S.G. Sandhya,
W/o S.H.Giriraj,
Aged ab out 54 years,
R/at No.61/1, 7th Main Road,
Behind Dattathreya Temple,
Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru-560 085.
4. Sri.Giriraja,
S/o S. Hanumantha Rao,
7th Main Road, Behind
Dattathreya Temple,
Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru-560 085. DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER SECTION 26

READ WITH ORDER VII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE
The plaintiff in the above case begs to submits as

follows:-

above and the plaintiff may also be served through her
Counsel Sri. K.K. Manjunath, Advocates, Men In Law
002.
2. The address of the defendants for similar purpose

115
3. The Plaintiff submits that the first defendant is the

Secretary of Karmikara Raithara Vasathi Nirmana
Sahakara Sangha Ltd. the said Sangha is established for
the welfare of the common people in distributing the
sites to the needy persons. Accordingly the first
Defendant Sangha allotted Site No.270, formed in Sy.
No.1 to 9, 18 to 21, 24, 30,33, and 34 of Thavarekere,
Dwarakanagara, Thavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to
South: 30 feet on 26-1-1993. Accordingly the first
Defendant issued possession certificate in favour of
husband of the Plaintiff i.e. Sri. K.R.Srinath, the said
property is morefully described in the schedule
hereunder and hereinafter referred to as Suit Schedule
Property. The Plaintiff is herewith producing the copy of
the Allotment-cum- Possession certificate as DOCUMENT
NO.1 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.
4. The Plaintiff further submits that the said K.R.

Srinath during his life time he went on paying the
installment amounts and when ever the First Defendant
sangha called for. The First Defendant has not executed
the sale deed in favour of said K.R. Srinath and bent
upon dodging the same by one or the other reason.
However the First Defendant Sangha was in the habit of
issuing the notices after notices to the said K.R. Srinath
for payment of the amount in respect of said site. The
said K.R.Srinath had already paid substantial sale
consideration amount to First Defendant Sangha.
116
3. The Plaintiff further submits that during the life

time of K.R. Srinath for his domestic necessities and
other financial problems had entered into an Agreement
of sale with the G.P.A. Holder of the Plaintiff on 13-12-
1996 by receiving the sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-
and the sale price was fixed for Rs.55,000/-. As on the
date of Agreement of sale the G.P.A. Holder of the Plaintiff
had paid substantial sale consideration amount and it is
agreed between the the G.P.A. Holder of the Plaintiff and
husband of Plaintiff i.e. T. Lalitha that the remaining sale
consideration would be paid at the time of registration
and after obtaining the sale deed from the First
Defendant Sangha. The Plaintiff is herewith producing
the Sale Agreement dated 13-12-1996 as DOCUMENT
NO.2 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.
4. The Plaintiff further submits that even after

several months the sale deed could not be obtained from
the First Defendant Sangha, and at that time K.R.
Srinath and his wife i.e. the plaintiff T. Lalitha have
requested the the G.P.A. Holder of the Plaintiff to pay
some more amount to meet their urgent legal and
domestic necessities, hence the the G.P.A. Holder of the
Plaintiff considering the Plaintiff’s legal necessities had
paid the balance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- to
them and requested them to execute the G.P.A. and
payment Receipt, accordingly the said K.R.Srinath and
his wife i.e. the Plaintiff herein Smt. T. Lalitha have
executed the General Power of Attorney and Affidavit
117
which was notarized one on 14-2-1997 empowering the

G.P.A. Holder of the plaintiff to attend all the meetings to
get the sale deed from First Defendant Sangha and
other acts, deeds and things. However the G.P.A. Holder
of the plaintiff requested the Plaintiff and her husband
K.R. Srinath to attend all the meetings of the Sangha and
make effort to get the sale deed, for all such things the
G.P.A. Holder of the plaintiff was ready to pay the
amount/charges for which the Plaintiff Smt.T. Lalitha
and her husband agreed for the said proposal of the
G.P.A. Holder of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is herewith
producing the copy of the G.P.A. and Affidavit as
DOCUMENTS NO.3 & 4 for kind perusal of this Hon’ble
court.
5. The Plaintiff further submits that as already stated

above till today the First Defendant Sangha has not
executed any sale deed in favour of husband of Plaintiff
Sri. K.R. Srinath. Subsequently the said K.R. Srinath
came to be died on 11-3-1998. Thereafter his wife the
Plaintiff here has attended all the meetings and gave
representations regarding the death of her husband K.R.
Srinath and requested the First Defendant Sangha to
execute the sale deed in her name.
6. The Plaintiff further submits that the Plaintiff

approached the First Defendant Sangha on several
dates and gave representations for some times for
execution of the sale deed from the First Defendant
Sangha.
118
7. The Plaintiff further submits that, the G.P.A. Holder

of the Plaintiff attended the meetings on behalf of
K.R.Srinath and Smt. T. Lalitha on several occasions at
her own costs. When such being the state of affairs, the
G.P.A. Holder of the Plaintiff visited the site property as
usual in the month of August 2019 then she came to
know that some third parties have started digging the
earth for laying the foundation, after enquiry the G.P.A.
Holder of the Plaintiff came to know that second
Defendant being the owner is represented by the third
defendant and executed the alleged sale deed in favour
of 4th Defendant vide Document bearing No. CMP-1-
06862/2013-14, Stored in C.D. No. CMPD102 dated 28-
11-2013, in the office of the Sub Rergistrar,
Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18. On looking into the address
and the recitals of the alleged sale deed that was
executed by the Second and third defendants in favour
of Defendant No.4, the G.P.A. Holder of the Plaintiff came
to know that the Defendants No. 2 to 4 have hand in
glove with each other in order to make illegal gains from
the property of the Plaintiff Smt. T. Lalitha and
Sri.K.R.Srinath, who is the allotee from the First
Defendant Sangha allotted the suit schedule property.
The said sale transaction is illegal and void document as
the said document will not have any legal sanctity in the
eye of law, the second defendant has given the address
of the First Defendant Sangha which clearly shows that
the Defendants No. 1 to 4 have involved in this illegal
119
acts in execution of the sale deed in order to knock off

the valuable property of K.R. Srinath and the Plaintiff. In
this regard the G.P.A. Holder of the Plaintiff is intending
to lodge a criminal case before the appropriate court of
law and also to registrar of Sangha to take necessary
action against Defendants 1 to 4 for having committed
criminal conspiracy by creating the fictitious and sham
documents.
8. The Plaintiff further submits that the First

Defendant Sangha is bound to execute the sale deed in
favour of the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was/is ever ready
to perform her part of the contractual obligations as per
the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 26-
1-1993 and she was/is also ready to bear all the
registration expenses and other incidental charges that
may be charged by the First Defendant Sangha. Further
the First Defendant Sangha failed to perform their part
of the contract in execution of the sale deed in favor of
the Plaintiff. From the above said facts it is clear that the
First Defendant sangha have failed to safeguard the
interest of the first allottee K.R. Srinath and to protect
his right over the Schedule property and failed to take
action against the erring persons who are putting up
illegal constructions over the sites allotted to K.R. Srinath
inturn to the plaintiff, which clearly goes to show that
all the Defendants are involved in illegal activities to
knock off the valuable property of the Plaintiff.
120
9. The Plaintiff further submits that the Plaintiff has

invested her hard earned money to purchase the Suit
schedule property and to fulfill her dreams of owning a
house of her independent, because of illegal acts of the
defendants in not safeguarding the property of the
allottee inturn of Plaintiff has caused her mental agony
and untold misery. The Plaintiff all these days eagerly
waited to get the sale deed registered in her name from
the First Defendant Sangha, but all the defendants
have turned hostile attitude towards the Plaintiff though
even today the Defendant No.1 Sangha is receiving the
installments from the plaintiff, have executed the sale
deed illegally in favour of Defendants No. 2 to 4. In this
regard the G.P.A. Holder of the plaintiff got issued a legal
notice dated 24-9-2019, to all the defendants, calling
upon them to execute the Registered sale Deed in respect
of the schedule property in favour of the Plaintiff. The
notice was sent through RPAD and the same has been
returned unserved with a postal shara “No such person &
Sangha was closed” The Plaintiff is herewith producing
the copies of the Legal Notice, Postal Receipts, and
returned RPAD covers as DOCUMENTS NO.5 & 6 for
kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.
10. The Plaintiff further submits that the First

Defendant Sangha is not working properly to achieve it’s
aims and objects to it’s members and making illegal
transactions in order to make unlawful gain. Hence
having no other alternative and efficacious remedy
121
available to the plaintiff is filing this suit for specific

performance of the Contract.

1993 when the first Defendant Sangha executed/allotted
the suit schedule property and on August 2019 when
the plaintiff came to know about the illegal sale deed and
putting up of construction by the Defendant No.4 and on
24-9-2019 when the G.P.A. Holder of the Plaintiff got issued
the Legal Notice to the Defendants No.1 to 4, calling upon
them to execute the Registered sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff and subsequently on all the dates of recurring
cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
court.

plaint.
Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble court

be pleased to pass Judgment and Decree against the
defendants as follows:-
i) directing the defendants No.1 to 4 to execute the
register the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in
terms of the Allotment/Possession Certificate/
122
Sale Agreements dated 26-1-1993 by receiving

the balance sale consideration from the plaintiff
in respect of the suit schedule property.
j) To declare that the alleged sale deed executed by
the second and third defendant in favour of 4 th
Defendant vide Document bearing No. CMP-1-
06862/2013-14, Stored in C.D. No. CMPD102
dated 28-11-2013, in the office of the Sub
Rergistrar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18 is not
binding on the Plaintiff;
k) On failure of the defendants to execute the Sale

deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the
suit schedule property, this Hon’ble court may be
pleased to pass an order, permitting the plaintiff
to deposit the balance sale consideration amount
of in court and to execute the Registered Sale
Deed of the suit schedule property through
process of law on behalf of the defendants in
favour of the plaintiff and deliver the physical
possession of the suit schedule property to the
plaintiff.
l) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble
SCHEDULE
All that part and parcel of the Site No.270, formed in Sy.
Dwarakanagara, Thavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
123
measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 30 feet,

bounded on the:
East by: Site No.271

West by: Site No.269
North by: Site No.255
South by: Road

Rep. by GPA Holder
VERIFICATION
I, the G.P.A. Holder of the Plaintiff above named do
hereby verify and state that what is stated above from
para-1 to 13 are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
Bengaluru
Dated: PLAINTIFF
Rep. by GPA Holder
124

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. T. Lalitha
Rep. by her GPA Holder
P. Lalithamma PLAINTIFF
AND:
Karmikara Raithara Vasathi
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, Smt. P. Lalithamma wife of K. Veera Reddy, aged
about 48 years, residing at No.540, Bannahalli Village,
Ramaiah Layout, Chandapura Post, Anekal
Taluk,Bangalore Urban District-560 099, do hereby
1. I am the G.P.A. Holder of the plaintiff in the above

case and I know the facts of the case, that I am deposing
to.
2. I submit that the statements made in para 1 to 13

of the accompanying plaint are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge belief and information.

list are the Original and true copies.

contents of this affidavit are true.
Identified by me,
125
Advocate DEPONENT
Bengaluru
Date:
No.of corrections
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE

BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. T. Lalitha,
W/o Late Srinath,
Aged major,
Residing at No.35,
Cashier Layout,
Bengaluru.

Smt. P. Lalithamma
residing at No.540,
Bannahalli Village,
Ramaiah Layout,
Chandapura Post,
Anekal Taluk,
AND:

Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru-560 018.
126

Chamarajpet,
Benglauru-560 018.
W/o S.H.Giriraj,
Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru-560 085.
4. Sri.Giriraja,
Dattathreya Temple,
Hosakerehalli,

PROCEDURE

of temporary injunction, restraining the defendant No.4
his agents, attorney holders or any body acting under or
through her from alienating or encumbering the suit
schedule property in favour of third parties, pending
justice and equity.
SCHEDULE
127
bounded on the:

South by: Road

Bengaluru
Date:
128

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. T. Lalitha
AND:
AFFIDAVIT

swearing to this affidavit. I submit that the averments
made in the plaint may kindly be read as part and parcel
of this affidavit to avoid repetition of facts.
2. I submit that the husband of the Plaintiff was the

allottee of the suit schedule property which was allotted
by the first Defendant. Subsequently the husband of the
Plaintiff entered into a Sale Agreement with me in respect
129
of the suit schedule property and received the advance

sale consideration amount as in the Agreement before the
attesting witnesses. Thereafter the plaintiff and her
husband approached me for further advance amount,
accordingly I have paid the further advance to the
Plaintiff and her husband. At that juncture the husband
of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff have executed a G.P.A. and
Affidavit in my favour.
3. I submit that surprisingly to my utter shock and

surprise, the Defendant No.4 was started putting up
foundation over the suit schedule property, immediately I
enquired with the Defendant No.4 and came to know the
illegal sale transactions of the Defendants No.2 to 4.
Thereafter I visited the first Defendant Sangha to enquire
about the illegal transactions, but the first Defendant
Sangha did not responded properly inspite of several
visits there was no fruitful result from the Sangha. Hence
left with no other alternative immediately I caused a legal
notice to all the defendants, but the said notices were
returned unserved shara. I try to stop the illegal
construction of the 4th defendant, but all are went in
vain. In this regard the Police did not helped me in any
manner, as the matter is pertains to Civil in nature and
advised me to approach appropriate civil court for
redressal of grievances. As I am apprehending danger at
the hands of the defendant No.4, that the defendant No.4
may at any moment sell away the suit schedule property
130

the defendant No.4 and her agents restraining the
defendant No.4 from alienating or encumbering the suit
schedule property in favour of third parties. I have got
a prima-facie case and the balance of convenience lies in
my favour by allowing the accompanying application.

hardship will be caused to the defendant No.4, on the
other hand, if it is not allowed I will be put to irreparable
loss, injury and justice will suffer.

I, the deponent herein do hereby declare that this is my
left hand thumb impression, and the contents of this
affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief
and information.
Identified by me,
Advocate. DEPONENT
Bengaluru
Date:
131

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. T. Lalitha,
W/o Late Srinath,
Aged major,
Residing at No.35,
Cashier Layout,
Bengaluru.

Smt. P. Lalithamma
residing at No.540,
Bannahalli Village,
Ramaiah Layout,
Chandapura Post,
Anekal Taluk,
AND:

Chamarajpet,
Bengaluru-560 018.
132
Chamarajpet,
Benglauru-560 018.
W/o S.H.Giriraj,
Hosakerehalli,
Bengaluru-560 085.
4. Sri.Giriraja,
Dattathreya Temple,
Hosakerehalli,

PROCEDURE

of temporary injunction, restraining the defendant No.4
his agents, workers attorney holders or any body acting
under or through her from putting up further
construction over the suit schedule property, pending
justice and equity.
SCHEDULE
133

bounded on the:

South by: Road

Bengaluru
Date:
134

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. T. Lalitha
AND:
AFFIDAVIT

swearing to this affidavit. I submit that the averments
made in the plaint may kindly be read as part and parcel
of this affidavit to avoid repetition of facts.
2. I submit that the husband of the Plaintiff was the

allottee of the suit schedule property which was allotted
by the first Defendant. Subsequently the husband of the
Plaintiff entered into a Sale Agreement with me in respect
of the suit schedule property and received the advance
sale consideration amount as in the Agreement before the
135
attesting witnesses. Thereafter the plaintiff and her

husband approached me for further advance amount,
accordingly I have paid the further advance to the
Plaintiff and her husband. At that juncture the husband
of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff have executed a G.P.A. and
Affidavit in my favour.
3. I submit that surprisingly to my utter shock and

surprise, the Defendant No.4 was started putting up
foundation over the suit schedule property, immediately I
enquired with the Defendant No.4 and came to know the
illegal sale transactions of the Defendants No.2 to 4.
Thereafter I visited the first Defendant Sangha to enquire
about the illegal transactions, but the first Defendant
Sangha did not responded properly inspite of several
visits there was no fruitful result from the Sangha. Hence
left with no other alternative immediately I caused a legal
notice to all the defendants, but the said notices were
returned unserved shara. I try to stop the illegal
construction of the 4th defendant, but all are went in
vain. In this regard the Police did not helped me in any
manner, as the matter is pertains to Civil in nature and
advised me to approach appropriate civil court for
redressal of grievances. As I am apprehending danger at
the hands of the defendant No.4, that the defendant No.4
may at any moment sell away the suit schedule property
the defendant No.4, restraining the defendant No.4 from
136
putting up further construction over the schedule

property. If the defendant No.4 is allowed to putting up
further construction in such an event I will be put to
great hardship and irreparable loss and the Defendant
No.4 may claim equity. I have got a prima-facie case and
the balance of convenience lies in my favour in allowing
the accompanying application.

hardship will be caused to the defendant No.4, on the
other hand, if it is not allowed I will be put to irreparable
loss, injury and justice will suffer.

I, the deponent herein do hereby declare that this is my
left hand thumb impression, and the contents of this
affidavit is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief
and information.
Identified by me,
Advocate. DEPONENT
Bengaluru
Date:
137

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. T. Lalitha
AND:



ends of justice.
Bengaluru
Date:
138

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. T. Lalitha
AND:

20. Copy of the Allotment cum possession certificate

dated 26-1-1993
21. Original Sale Agreement dated 13-12-1996
22. Original G.P.A. dated 14-2-1997
23. Original Affidavit dated 14-2-1997
24. Original Death Certificate of K.R.Srinath
25. Office Copy of the Legal Notice dated 24-9-2019
26. Postal Receipts 4 Nos.
27. Un-served RPAD cover with Acknowledgement 4
Nos.
28. Police complaint for loss of original Allotment
cum Possession Certificate with NCR Receipt.
Bengaluru
139

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. T. Lalitha
AND:

VALUATION SLIP
Schedule Court Fees
and Suits
Valuation
Act, 1958
under which
the property
comes.
1 2 3 4 5
One Not On the basis of This suit is for
Schedule applicable SV & KCF Act the relief of Rs.3,375/-
1958 Specific
performance of
the contract.
The total Sale
consideration is
Rs.55,000/-
accordingly the
Plaintiff has
paid the court
fee under
Section 40 of
KCF & SV Act
Total Rs. Rs.3,375

140
Bengaluru

O.S.NO. ___________/2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. T. Lalitha
AND:
INDEX
No. Fee
1. Memorandum of Plaint Under order
VII Rule-1 Read with Sec.26 of Code
of Civil Procedure
3. Statement Under order VI Rule-14-A
4. Valuation Slip
5. List of Documents with documents
6. Vakalath
7. I. A. No.I Under Order 39 Rule-1 &
2 of CPC with Affidavit
8. I.A. No.II Under Order 39 Rule-1 &
2 of CPC with Affidavit
Process Memo and copy to the
defendant
141
Bengaluru
142
FINAL DRAFT
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT
ANEKAL
O.S. NO.180/2017
BETWEEN:
Smt.S. Ramyashree &

Another PLAINTIFFS
AND:
M. Srinivas DEFENDANT
143
UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE
DEFENDANT FILES THE FOLLOWING COMPROMISE
AS HEREUNDER.
After filing of the above suit due to intervention of

well wishers, elderly persons of both parties, the dispute
between the parties came to be settled amicably as
hereunder:-
1. The parties to this suit admit that the suit

properties are the joint family and ancestral properties of
both parties.
2. This Defendant admits that the Flats allotted in

favour of the plaintiffs in JANA JEEVA Splendour-I
Apartment built in Sy. No. 11/1, situated at
Naganathapura, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
under the two different Release Deeds dated 5-6-2015,
and they are at liberty to hold, possession and enjoy the
same as they likes.
3. This defendant has obtained the Loan by
mortgaging the documents pertaining to the House
Property No.44/3-32, Old PID No. 57-241-32, presently
PID No. 178-W0027-2, measuring to an extent of 40 x 30
feet, situated at J.P. Nagar, Bangalore in State Bank of
Mysore, Sudhama Nagara Branch, Bangalore and this
defendant has undertaken to repay the same on his own
risk and the plaintiffs are nothing to do with the said
loan.
144
4. The Plaintiffs and Defendant admit that the mother

of the plaintiff has let out the premises to the tenants of
the House property situated in J.P. Nagar i.e. bearing
No.44/3-32, the defendant has agreed that the rents
derived from the said House property shall be equally
shared between the plaintiffs, the defendant has no right
or interest over the said property, from hereafter the
plaintiffs can deal with the said property as they like as
per the shares allotted to them.
5. This Defendant further undertakes and agreed to

allot the shares of the plaintiffs in other ancestral
properties of this defendant which are yet to be
partitioned and which are not included in this suit and
the plaintiffs are at liberty to take action against this
defendant at an appropriate time.
6. This defendant further admits that this defendant

at no point of time deprived or denied the right and share
of the plaintiffs in the suit properties and in the other
joint family and ancestral properties, which are yet to be
partitioned between the family members of the defendant.
7. This defendant further undertakes and admits and

agreed that he has no manner of right or share over the
properties acquired by the mother of the plaintiffs Late
Smt. Gowramma along with her sisters under the Gift,
145
Will and Sale Deeds i.e. Will dated 29-10-1994 vide Regd.
Document No. 93/1994-95, Book-3, registered in the
Office of the Sub Registrar, Kengeri, Deed of Sale dated
27-11-2002, which is registered as Document No.
BNG(U)KNGR/ 15311/2002-03, in the office of the
Senior Sub Registrar, Kengeri with respect to Property
bearing No.44/3-32, situated at J.P. Nagar 1st Phase,
Gift Deed dated 11-5-2007 which is registered as
Document No. BNG(U) JPN/952/2007-08, stored in C.D.
No. JPND5, registered in the office of the Sub Registrar,
J.P. Nagar, Bangalore with respect to Krishna Villa
Apartment, situated at 5th Phase, J.P. Nagar and Gift
Deed dated 13-11-2014 which is registered as Document
No. BSK-1-10158/2014-15, stored in C.D. No. BSKD
291, Book-I, registered in the office of the Sub Registrar,
(Banashankari) Basavanagudi, Bangalore with respect to
land in Sy.No.42/1, measuring to an extent of 0-19
guntas, situated at Rayasandra village, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk. And another Gift Deed dated 5-6-2015
bearing Reg. No.BGR-1-01432/2015-16, stored in C.D.
No.BGRD263, registered in the office of the Sub
Registrar, Jayanagara (Begur), Bangalore with respect to
the Flat bearing No. B-03, First Floor, Jana Jeeva
Splendour-1 and Flat No.C-18, Second Floor of Jana
Jeeva Splendour-1, situated at Naganathapura village,
Begur Hobli, Bengalore South Taluk. The plaintiffs are at
liberty to enjoy and deal with the same as they like which
is acquired by the Plaintiff’s mother as absolute owners.
146
In that connection the defendant will co-operate with the

plaintiffs for any purposes without claiming any share.
8. The plaintiffs and the defendant have taken

possession of their respective share allotted to them as
detailed below and they are at liberty to obtain the
Revenue entries in respect of their shares allotted under
this compromise, which are morefully mentioned as A, B
and C schedule morefully described in this compromise
petition. Further the Defendant has filed an application
to effect the phodi in respect of Item No.1 of Suit
Schedule property, the same is pending consideration. If
at all any changes made after the phodi in Sy.No. or
Sub. Nos. will not affect the rights of the parties of this
Compromise petition.
9. The parties have signed this compromise without

any body’s threat or coercion from any body, undue
influence and they have affixed their signatures on their
own free will and volition.
Wherefore, the plaintiffs and the defendant pray

that this Hon’ble court be pleased to decree this suit in
terms of this compromise, in the interest of justice and
equity.
A-Schedule Property fallen to the share of Defendant

M. Srinivas:
147
1) All that part and parcel of the property bearing Sy.

No.1/1B, measuring to the extent of 12 (Twelve) guntas
out of total extent of 1 Acre 12 guntas towards Western
side, situated at Rayasandra village, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, bounded on the:
East by: Property allotted to the share of Smt.
Ramyashree,
West by: Property of Krishna Reddy

North by: Rajakaluve
South by: Property of Chikkarama Reddy,
No.70, New No.70/3, situated at Rayasandra village,
Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, measuring 4 ½ (Four
and half) guntas, out of total extent of 12 ½ guntas
towards the Eastern side, bounded on the:
East by: Property of Muni Reddy,
West by: Property allotted in favour of First Plaintiff
Smt. Ramyashree,
North by: Property of Hanumappa Reddy and

South by: Property of Anandarama Reddy,
B-Schedule Property fallen to the share of First

Plaintiff Smt. Ramyashree:

No.1/1B, measuring to the extent of 20 (Twenty) guntas
out of total extent of 1 Acre 12 guntas in the middle of
the property, situated at Rayasandra village, Sarjapura
Hobli, Anekal Taluk, bounded on the:
148
East by: Property allotted to the share of 2 nd Plaintiff

Smt. Latha Shree,
West by: A-Schedule Property allotted to the share of

Defendant M. Srinivas

2) All that part and parcel of property bearing Sy.

No.70, New No.70/3, measuring to the extent of 4 (Four)
guntas, out of total extent of 12½ guntas, situated at
Rayasandra village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, in the
middle portion, bounded on the:
East by: Property allotted to the share of Defendant

Sri. M.Srinivas,
West by: C-Schedule Property allotted in favour of the

Second plaintiff Smt. Lathashree

3) All that piece and parcel of the residential

Apartment bearing Flat No. A-05, of Ground Floor in
Jana Jeeva Splendour-I, Apartment built on Sy. No.11/1,
measuring 1325 Sq. feet of Super Built up area with
proportionate land share of undivided 499 Sq. feet with
one covered Car parking area in Stilt floor with one hall
three Bed room, Kitchen, Living, Dining and Two Toilets
with Mossaic/vetrified flooring, Sal/Teak Wood doors &
Windows with Civil all amenities and right over the
149
passages, common areas, Lobbies, stair case and other

area of common use.
4) All that piece and parcel of residential Flat No.B-14

of First Floor, Jana Jeeva Splendour-I, Apartment built
on Sy. No.11/1, Naganathapura, Begur Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk, measuring to the extent of 1170 Sq.ft of
super built up area, with 441 Sq. feet of undivided share
on land inclusive of one covered Car parking area in Stilt
floor with one hall two Bed rooms, Kitchen, Living, Dining
and Two Toiles with Mossaic/vetrified flooring, Sal/Teak
Wood doors & Windows with Civil all amenities and right
over the passages, common areas, Lobbies, stair case
and other area of common use.
5) All that piece and parcel of residential Flat No.C-

18, Second Floor in Jana Jeeva Splendour-I, Apartment
built on Sy. No.11/1, Naganathapura, Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, measuring to the extent of 1280
Sq.ft of super built up area, with 482 Sq. feet of
undivided share on land with one covered Car parking
area in Stilt floor with one hall two Bed rooms, Kitchen,
Living, Dining and Two Toilets with Mossaic/vetrified
flooring, Sal/Teak Wood doors & Windows with Civil all
amenities and right over the passages, common areas,
Lobbies, stair case and other area of common use.
150
6) All that part and parcel of House property bearing

No. 44/3-32, Old PID No. 57-241-32, presently PID No.
178-W0027-2, situated at “Renuka Nilaya”, 13th Cross,
37th Main, J.P. Nagar First Phase, Bangalore-560 078,
measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 30
feet, consisting of Ground, First and Second floor RCC
roofed building with all civic amenities, out of which half
portion towards Eastern side, measuring East to West:
20 feet and North to South: 30 feet, bounded on the:
East by: Private property,
West by: Property allotted to Latha Shree
North by: Private property and
South by: Road
C-Schedule Property fallen to the share of Second

Plaintiff Smt. Latha Shree:

No.1/1B, measuring to an extent of 20 (Twenty) guntas
out of total extent of 1 Acre 12 guntas, Eastern side,
situated at Rayasandra village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal
Taluk, bounded on the:
East by: Property of Prakash Reddy,

West by: B-Schedule property allotted to the share of
Smt. Ramya Shree

No.70, New No.70/3, measuring to the extent of 4 (Four)
151
guntas out of 0-12 ½ guntas, situated at Rayasandra

village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, bounded on the:
East by: B-Schedule Property allotted to the share of

first Plaintiff Ramyashree,
West by: Property of Prakash Reddy


Apartment bearing Flat No. C-07, of Second Floor in Jana
Jeeva Splendour-I, Apartment built on Sy. No.11/1,
three Bed room, Kitchen, Living, Dining and Two Toilets
area of common use.
4) All that piece and parcel of Flat No.D-16 Third Floor

in Jana Jeeva Splendour-I, Apartment built on Sy.
No.11/1, Naganathapura, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, measuring to the extent of 1170 Sq.ft of super
built up area, with 441 Sq. feet of undivided share on
land with one covered Car parking area in Stilt floor with
one hall two Bed rooms, Kitchen, Living, Dining and Two
152
Toilets with Mossaic/vetrified flooring, Sal/Teak Wood

doors & Windows with Civil all amenities and right over
the passages, common areas, Lobbies, stair case and
other area of common use.
5) All that piece and parcel of the Flat bearing No. B-

03, of First Floor portion in Jana Jeeva Splendour-I,
Apartment built on Sy. No.11/1, situated at
Naganathapura village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk measuring to an extent of 1,255 Square feet of
super built up area, with undivided share of 473 Sq. ft. in
one hall three Bed room, Kitchen, Living, Dining and Two
Toilets with Mossaic/vetrified flooring, Sal/Teak Wood

178-W0027-2, consisting with Ground, First & Second
floor of RCC roofed building, situated at “Renuka
Nilaya”, 13th Cross, 37th Main, J.P. Nagar First Phase,
Bangalore-560 078, measuring East to West: 40 feet and
North to South: 30 feet, out of which half portion towards
Western side, measuring East to West: 20 feet and North
to South: 30 feet, bounded on the:
East by: Property allotted to Ramyashree,
West by: Private property
153
North by: Private property

South by: Road
1.
2.
ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT DEFENDANT

VERIFICATION
We the plaintiffs and defendant do hereby state that
what is stated above are true and correct to the best of
our knowledge, belief and information.
1.
2.
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANT
Anekal
Date:
154
155
156
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. FAMILY JUDGE, AT

BENGALURU
M.C. NO.3188/2018
BETWEEN:
Sri. Vijaya Kumar PETITIONER

Rep. by his P.A. Holder
Sri.V.Vishwanathan Mudaliar
AND:
Smt. K.R.Swetha RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT FILES THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS

TO THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER
SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT AS
HEREUNDER.
The Respondent respectfully submits as follows:
1. At the outset the petition filed by the petitioner for

the alleged relief of Restitution of Conjugal Rights is
neither maintainable not sustainable in law and hence
the same is liable to be rejected.
2. The petition is filed by the G.P.A. Holder who is not

a authorized person nor he does not have any knowledge
about the personal affairs of the petitioner and the
Respondent, on this ground also the petition is liable to
be rejected.
157
3. With regard to para-1 of the petition do not require

any traverse as the same is formal in nature.
4. The averments made in para-2 & 3 of the petition is

admitted as true and correct.
5, The averments made in para-4 of the petition are

entirely denied as false. It is the petitioner who started
misbehave with the respondent by one or the other
reasons and very often the petitioner used to quarrel with
the respondent along with his parents, the true facts are
morefully detailed in the proceeding para.
6. The averments made in para-5 of the petition are

also hereby specifically denied as false. It is the petitioner
who does not lead the normal life as a dutiful husband.
7. The averments made in para-6 of the petition is

hereby denied as false, but it is the petitioner who did not
show any love or affection, healthy relationship or
interest towards the respondent.
8. The averments made in para-7 of the petition is also

denied as false. It is the petitioner who show displeasure
towards the respondent and it is the respondent who is
undergoing untold mental agony, stress etc., which is
affecting her day today life.
9. The averments made in para-8, 9 & 10 of the

petition are all hereby denied as false. It is submitted
158
that the petitioner’s parents who used to quarrel with the

respondent by one or the other pretext by saying that the
Respondent is a fatty women and she does not known
any thing about cooking and other house works.

hereby denied as false.
11. The averments made in para-12, 13 & 14 of the

petition are denied as false. It is the petitioner and his
parents who are doing all sorts of quarrels and scolding
the respondent and her parents in most vulgar and filthy
language. Though the petitioner was/is employed in
U.S.A. he has assured the Respondent that he would
take the Respondent to U.S.A. as early as possible to
setting up a residential accommodation, but the
petitioner failed and neglected to fulfill his own
assurances.
12. The averments made in para-15 & 16 of the petition

are denied as false. The petitioner has not fulfilled his
own assurance as stated supra and he never advised the
respondent to learn cooking at any point of time, as the
Respondent is well versed in cooking.

entirely denied as false. It is the petitioner’s parents who
have forcefully thrown out the Respondent from the
matrimonial home soon after the departure of the
petitioner to U.S.A.
159
14. The averments made in para-18,19 & 20 of the

petition are hereby denied as false. It is the petitioner
and his parents have deserted the respondent willfully
and forcibly, now the respondent is under the mercy of
her parents and she has been undergoing deep mental
agony, torture and humiliation. The Respondent never
illtreated or ignored the petitioner nor his parents at any
point of time. During the stay of the Respondent she had
looked after her husband and his parents as a dutiful
woman, it is false that the date mentioned in para-20 of
the petition, on which date the Respondent left the
matrimonial home is denied as false.
15. The averments made in para-21 is hereby denied as

false and frivolous. It is submitted that the petitioner till
today has not made any efforts to get the Visa or other
permissions from the U.S. authorities to take back the
respondent to U.S.A. Further it is denied that the
respondent denied to live with petitioner inspite of efforts
made by the petitioner and his well wishers.
16. The averments made in para-22 to 24 of the petition

are all hereby denied as false. It is the petitioner who has
not shown any love and affection nor co-operated with
the respondent in living harmonious family life with the
respondent. It is the respondent who is under deep
mental shock and bared all sort of cruelties meted out by
the petitioner and his parents.
160
17. The Respondent respectfully submits that prior to

th marriage the parents of the Respondent were looking
for a groom on that basis registered her name in a Tamil
Matrimony and thereafter the petitioner and his parents
finalized the respondent profile and the Respondent
parents got a proposal from the petitioner through Tamil
Matrimony. Before the marriage the Respondent family
members visited petitioner’s house. Similarly the
petitioner’s family members visited the Respondent’s
house at Bangalore, at that time of marriage discussion
the petitioner was not present physically, but he
Respondent on live skype on that day, after frequent
talks and negotiations the parents of the Respondent and
the petitioner fixed the date of engagement on 23-6-2017,
at the time of engagement the petitioner had demanded
the parents of the Responden to give Rs.25,00,000/-
cash and two sites, one car, one house and 600 grams of
gold and also 5 Kgs Silver as Gift. It is further submits
that in the presence of the petitioner and his family
members on 23-6-2017 upon the demand of the
petitioner the parents of the respondent have agreed for
the demands made by the petitioner part by part.
18. It is submitted that on 13-10-2017 the petitioner

had visited the respondent house and spoke with the
parents of the respondent stating that he had some
disputes and he did not like the respondent and he did
not want to marry the respondent, after convincing him
by sorting out the misunderstandins the marriage was
161
fixed on 9-11-2017 at Shri. Venkateshwara Kalyana

Mantapa, No.17, 100 feet Road, Mohan Kumar Nagar,
Near Chowdeshwari Bus Stop, Yeshwanthapura,
Bangalore and performed the marriage as per the Hindu
rites and customs, the parents of the respondent have
spent 20 lakhs of rupees for the said marriage by raising
Loans and the parents of the Respondent have given
Rs.1,50,000/- cash for purchasing of Cloths, 50 Soverigh
gold, 3 ½ k.g. Silver pooja items woprth of
Rsw.3,50,000/- and also a cash of Rs.2 Lakhs to the
petitioner.
19. It is submitted that the petitioner demanded the

parents of the Respondent to arrange their First Night at
Five Star Hotel, accordingly the parents of the
Respondent arranged the first night in Habitat Hotel on
9-11-2017. Thereafter the Respondent accompanied with
the petitioner to the matrimonial home and was
discharging her duties sincerely and honestly as dutiful
wife of the petitioner. After one month the petitioner did
not show interest in physical relationship with the
respondent and started showing his real colors by
harassing and humiliating the respondent stating that
the petitioner is not at all interested with the
Respondent, due to force of the petitioner’s parents he
got married the respondent and started ill-treating the
respondent and over weight of the respondent.
20. It is submitted that the petitioner started harassing

the respondent stating that the marriage performed was
162
not at all luxurious and the food arrangement was not

proper to their relatives and even stared uttering that if
at all they had looked out for other bride, they would
have got handsome cash apart from jewels.
21. It is submitted that the thereafter the petitioner left

to U.S.A. on 21-12-2017 for his urgent work in cognizant
company before going to U.S.A. the petitioner had
assured the Respondent that he would take her along
with him and also took the marriage registration
certificate, passport and other documents for applying
the Visa, finally the petitioner went to U.S.A. and
assured the petitioner to take her after making
arrangements in U.S.A. and thereafter he had gone to
attend a death Ceremony in their native village, during
that the parents of the petitioner sent the respondent to
her parents till the end of ritual ceremony, when the
respondent was in her parents house, the petitioner did
not come forward to get her back to the matrimonial
home. Thereafter the Respondent joined the matrimonial
home, during her stay in the matrimonial home, the
parents of the petitioner started harassing the
respondent to bring gifts and two sites as assured by the
respondent’s parents when the respondent sought for
time, the parents of the petitioner abused her and her
parents for not fulfilling their demands and further they
warned the Respondent to get slim, then only they allow
the respondent to stay in the matrimonial home to lead
marital life with the petitioner.
163
22. It is submitted that the petitioner after going to

Abroad, the petitioner was chating with the respondent in
Whatsapp for some and thereafter he never called the
respondent nor taken care of her and started avoiding
the Respondent, he had called the respondent only on
23-1-2018 and spoke with her for at less than two
minutes, after that he never called or tried to meet the
respondent till today.
23. The Respondent submits that subsequently on 21-

12-2017 the petitioner’s parents picked up quarrels with
the respondent and have forcefully thrown out the
Respondent from the matrimonial home soon after the
departure of the petitioner to U.S.A. It is the petitioner
and his parents have deserted the respondent willfully
and forcibly, now the respondent is under the mercy of
her parents and she has been undergoing deep mental
agony, torture and humiliation. The Respondent never
illtreated or ignored the petitioner nor his parents at any
point of time. During the stay of the Respondent she had
looked after her husband and his parents as a dutiful
woman. Inspite of all these tortures, humiliation and ill
treatment meted out by the parents of the petitioner, the
respondent was tolerated and she did not shared her
problems with her parents or any body. The petitioner
and his parents never mend their attitudes towards the
Respondent. The petitioner’s parents used to call the
parents of the respondent and complaining towards the
Respondent without there being any reason.
164
24. It is submitted that the petitioner is working in

U.S.A. in a reputed company and earning handsome
salary and spending for his lavish and luxurious life, but
he never made any efforts to take back the Respondent to
U.S.A. even though he had passport of the Respondent
with him. The petitioner and his parents often and often
demanding the Respondent to bring money from her
parents, when the Respondent pleaded her inability to
meet the illegal demands of the petitioner and his
parents, they used to abuse, torture, humiliate the
respondent. Inspite of the efforts made by the
Respondent to re-join the petitioner, but the petitioner
and his parents are not ready and willing to take back
the respondent to the matrimonial home to lead a happy
marital life. The petitioner never listen to the advise of
the elders and well wishers of the respondent, he used to
listen only to the words of his parents. Even in the
matrimonial home of the petitioner, there is no privacy to
the petitioner and Respondent, since there is no locks to
any one of the rooms in the matrimonial home. During
the stay of the respondent with the petitioner, the
petitioner never shown any love and affection towards the
Respondent by listening to the words of his parents,
though the respondent has discharged her marital
obligations towards the petitioner, inspite of all these
harassments, torture and humiliation meted out by the
petitioner and his parents, the respondent was tolerated
the same with a fond hope that the petitioner will mend
165
his attitude and lookafter the respondent well in future,

but all the expectations and ambitions were proved futile.
The petitioner is in the habit of listening to the
instructions and advise of his mother even for sleeping
with the Respondent and also for cohabitation. Rest of
the time the petitioner used to sit before the Computer all
the day ignoring the respondent.
25. The Respondent submits that all the efforts made

by the Respondent and her parents in re-joining the
Respondent with the petitioner were went in vain. Hence
the Respondent with no other option has lodged a
complaint against the petitioner and his parents before
the jurisdictional Police and the said Police have
registered a case in Cr. No.95/2018 under Section 498-A,
Read with Section 34 of IPC and 3 & 4 of D.P.Act in
addition to this the respondent has filed a Crl. Mis.
No.112/2018 Under Domestic Violance Act, before the
Vth M.M.T.C. against the petitioner and his parents and
the said cases are pending for consideration. It is further
submitted that in order to escape from the clutches of
law the petitioner has filed the present petition on false
and frivolous grounds.
26. The Respondent submits that the petitioner is

working as Software Engineer in Cognizant Technology
Solutions, U.S.A. and earning more than Rs.2,00,000/-
per month and also he is owning residential properties
and collecting rents. Presently the Respondent is living
166
without a shelter and no penny to spend for day today

needs. The petitioner and his family members are the
responsible persons for all the misery of the respondent,
by their wrongful acts and cruelty.
27 The Respondent submits that without prejudice to

the contentions taken supra, the Respondent is ready
and willing to join the company of the petitioner at the
matrimonial home so as to lead a happy marital life by
forgiving all the past incidents of the petitioner and his
parents. The Respondent craves leave of this Hon’ble
court to lead cross examination of the petitioner in
Camara proceedings if need arise.
28. All other allegations which are not specifically

traversed herein are hereby denied as false and incorrect,
the same are put to strict proof of the petitioner.
Wherefore, the Respondent respectfully prays that

this Hon’ble court be pleased to dismiss the above
petition with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice
and equity.
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT RESPONDENT

VERIFICATION
I, the Respondent herein do hereby state and verify
that what is stated above is true and correct to the best
167
RESPONDENT
Bangalore
Date:
168
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT

BENGALURU (CCH-7)
O.S. NO.5555/2006
BETWEEN:
Smt. Susheelamma
And others PLAINTIFFS
AND:
Smt. Muniyamma and

Others DEFENDANTS
MEMO
The undersigned Counsel for the Plaintiffs pray that

this Hon’ble court be pleased to dismiss the above suit as
against the Defendant No.23 by name Ramesh, since he
has paid a sum of Rs. (Rupees
By way of Demand Drart, drawn on

Dated , hence the Defendant No.23 is
not a necessary party to the above proceedings. The
Memo may kindly be taken on record, in the interest of
justice and equity.

Bangalore
Date:
169
170
IN THE COURT OF THE KARNATAKA

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (VACATION BENCH) AT
BENGALURU
Appeal No. __________/2018

BETWEEN:
Sri. Mahadeva C.M. APPLICANT
AND:
The Excise Commissioner

And another RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION UNDER SEC. OF THE

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT 1985, the Applicant
above named prays that for the reasons sworn to in the
annexed affidavit, this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased
to permit the Applicant to file above appeal before the
Vacation Bench, as the matter is urgent and emergent, in
Bengaluru
Date: ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT
171
IN THE COURT OF THE KARNATAKA

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (VACATION BENCH) AT
BENGALURU
Appeal No. __________/2018

BETWEEN:
Sri. Mahadeva C.M. APPLICANT
AND:
The Excise Commissioner

And another RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mahadeva. C.M. S/o Late H. Marigantaiah, aged

about years, working as Sub Inspector of Excise,
Ramadurga Sub Division, Belagavi District, Karnataka
State, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as
follows:
1. I submit that I am the Applicant in the above case

and I know the facts of the case and hence I am swearing
to this affidavit. I request this Hon’ble Court to read the
averments of the appeal Memo as part and parcel of this
2. I submit that I am challenging the order of the First

Respondent transferring me from Srirangapatna Zone to
172
Ramadurga Zone, Belagavi District based on the circular

of the Election Commission. I further submit that I am
under apprehension that I may be retained in the
Ramadurga Zone or I may be transferred to some other
place after the completion of Assembly Election. I was
working in Sriranga Patna Zone for the past 1 ½ year.
The said Transfer is only a Ad-hoc transfer and not a
regular transfer, I have aged ailing father, who is under
constant treatment due to the above said transfer I could
not make necessary arrangement for looking after my
family and my ailing father, as such it is necessary me to
get transfer to Srirangapatna Zone soon after completion
of Assembly Elections. Hence, with no other alternative I
have filed the above appeal for necessary reliefs from this
Hon’ble Tribunal. That in view of the Summer Vacation to
the Hon’ble Tribunal, it is just and necessary to permit
me to file the above appeal before the Vacation Bench
since there is an urgency in the matter to hear me. Hence
this application.

suffer irreparable loss and injustice. On the other hand if
the application is allowed no prejudice or hardship would
be caused to the Respondents. .

173

Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate
Bengaluru
Date:
No.of Corrs.
174

BENGALURU
O.S. NO.7917/2012
BETWEEN:
175
Smt. Sujathadevi and

Another PLAINTIFFS
AND:
T. Janardhan and
Others DEFENDANTS
WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED BY THE DEFENDANT

NO.3
The Defendant No.3 files the following Written

arguments in the above suit as hereunder.
1. The Plaintiff filed the above suit for the relief of

permanent injunction and such other reliefs, even
though the plaintiff is not in the alleged possession of the
suit schedule property or the alleged owner of the same,
based upon the alleged registered sale deed dated 23-2-
2004 said to have been executed by the first defendant
represented by alleged GPA holder of the first defendant
by the Second defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The plaintiff has produced the General Power of

Attorney, Sale Agreement dated 17-2-2004 and an
affidavit and another sale Agreement dated 22-2-2004
which are all un-registered documents (marked subject
to objections before the Hon’ble court). In the above said
documents on carefully looking into the signatures found
on the said documents are entirely different from on
another, by looking with bare eyes the said differences in
the signatures may clearly be identified. In all the
documents such as sale agreement there is a hand
176
written found in all the places with regard to amount and

other facts which are not counter signed by either the
plaintiffs or the alleged GPA holder. In this regard in the
Agreement dated 17-2-2004 the amount is shown as
Rs.78,000/- being the sale consideration by Plaintiffs to
Muniraju the defendant No.2. Whereas in another
agreement, it is shown as Rs.3,40,000/-, the sale
consideration of the said property and again in the sale
deed dated 23-2-2004 the amount of sale consideration
is shown as only Rs.78,000/- for the reasons best known
to the plaintiffs and defendant No.2, which clearly goes to
show the fraudulent acts and deeds done by the plaintiffs
and defendant No.2 in order to illegally grab the suit
schedule property. It is pertinent to mention here that
the Defendant No.1 has purchased the property for
Rs.1,78,000/-, but in the sale deed of the plaintiff, it is
mentioned only Rs.78,000/- as sale consideration, which
clearly goes to show the validity of the sale held between
Defendants No.2 & the Plaintiff.
3. The defendant No.3 further submits that the second

defendant is in the habit of concocting the documents
and executing the Agreements and sale deed in the
locality as he being the politically influenced person and
also he himself is the politician in the K.R.Puram area
and there are lot of complaints on the Defendant No.2,
the police have registered FIR and charge sheet against
him. In all the charge sheet filed against the defendant
No.2. the modus operendi of the second defendant are
177
one and the same i.e. forging the signatures of original

owner and executing the documents in favour of third
parties. The plaintiff is one such persons in the said acts.
In this regard the defendant No.3 has produced some of
the FIRs. And chare sheets for the kind perusal of this
Hon’ble court. On perusing the said documents, this
Hon’ble court can come to the conclusion the conduct of
the Second defendant.
4. The defendant No.3 further submits that on going

through the agreement of sale, the alleged G.PA. and
affidavit there are number of hand written founds on the
said documents and it has been notarized before the
Notary but no counter signature has been found with
regard to the corrections made thereon nor to the hand
written matters. Hence it can be said that the documents
had no legal sanctity in the eye of law and not binding
force on any of the parties. The title of the property in
question has not been properly transferred in favour of
the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have not produced any of the
original documents of his Vendor said to have been
purchased by him in order to show the genuineness of
the said documents. This fact clearly goes to show that
the plaintiffs have not used due diligence before
purchasing the suit schedule property, as such the
provision of Caveat Emptor is applicable to the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff ought to have enquired all the details and
rights of his Vendor in respect of the suit schedule
property before purchasing the suit schedule property.
178
Instead the plaintiffs purchased the suit property blindly

and now claiming the alleged right without possession
and valid title. It is well settled principles of law that the
valid title has to be passed from the rightful owner who
acquires valid right and interest. In the present case on
hand, the Second defendant is not the alleged rightful
owner who has concocted the document based upon
which has executed the alleged sale deed without any
manner of right or authority. Hence the plaintiff is not
entitled to any of the relief from the hands of this Hon’ble
court.
5. The third defendant submits that after receipt of the

suit summons in the above suit, the first defendant who
is the original owner has filed the written statement and
in the Written statement he is clearly admitted the
execution of the sale deed in favour of the third
defendant and categorically denied the execution of the
alleged G.P.A., affidavit and Agreement in favour of the
second defendant and also denied the signatures found
thereon. Hence it can be clearly goes to show that the
third defendant has acquired valid right, title and interest
over the suit schedule property along with possession.
6. The third defendant submits that the third

defendant had purchased the suit property under the
Registered sale deed from the first defendant under the
sale deed dated 27-9-2004. Before purchasing the suit
property, the suit property was mortgaged by the first
defendant in the Birla Home Finance by depositing the
179
title deeds and the said authority have issued a letter

stating that the Loan has been cleared by the borrower
and the sale deed dated 6-3-2003 and sale agreement
dated 4-3-2003 Development Agreement dated 4-3-2003
and one Surety Cheque and post dated cheques have
been posted returned to the first defendant, the said
documents along with original documents are produced
in the above suit by filing separate application for kind
perusal of this Hon’ble court.
7. The third defendant submits that while purchasing

the suit schedule property from the first defendant, this
defendant has obtained all the original documents of the
Vendor, and after careful perusal of the said documents
and right of the first defendant, the third defendant had
purchased the suit property for valuable sale
consideration from this rightful owner. The said
documents clearly goes to show that the right, title and
interest have been passed from the rightful owner to this
defendant. And subsequent to the said sale deed, the
third defendant has been in lawful possession and
obtained the Electricity connection by putting up two
squares of A.C. sheet roofed house. Thereafter the
authorities have accepted the Khatha in the name of this
defendant and this defendant is paying the taxes
regularly till date. Therefore injunction can not be
granted against the true owner as per the settled
principles of law laid down by our Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka and also Apex court of India.
180
8. The defendant No.3 submits that the plaintiff has

miserably failed to prove his case by producing the
corroborative evidence and supporting documents to
meet his contentions. The documents relied upon by the
plaintiffs are all disputed and concocted, created one
upon which the plaintiff can not claim any manner of
right or possession over the suit property nor any of the
relief from the hands of this Hon’ble court. The Plaintiff
filed the above suit is only for bare injunction without
there being any possession over the suit schedule
property nor having any valid right, title and interest over
the suit property.
9. Under the above said facts and circumstances the

suit of the plaintiff is barred by law and there is no cause
of action to maintain the case any longer and liable to be
dismissed in toto.
Wherefore, the third defendant respectfully prays

that this Hon’ble court be pleased to dismiss the suit of
the plaintiff by allowing the application and in the light
of the above said facts and circumstances, in the interest
of justice and equity.
ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT

NO.3
Bangalore
Date: 16-3-2018
181

BENGALURU
O.S. NO. 8538/2017

BETWEEN:
Sri. Devaraj PLAINTIFF
AND:
Smt. Leelamma and

Others DEFENDANTS
182
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10 (2) READ

WITH SECTION 151 OF C.P.C.

affidavit, the impleading applicants pray that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to permit them to come
on record as proposed Plaintiffs No.2 & 3 as they are
the proper and necessary parties to adjudicate the above
matter effectively and properly, in the interest of justice
and equity.
NAME & ADDRESS OF THE PROPOSED
PLAINTIFFS NO.2 & 3
2. Sri. Naveen.S.
S/o Shankar,
3. Kum. Priyanka.S.
D/o Shankar,
Both are residing at

No.39, Chamundeshwari
Towers, Goverdhan Garden,
Yelachenahalli, J.C. Industrial
Layout, Kanakapura Main Road,
Bangalore-560 062.
Bengaluur
Date ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED
PLAINTIFFS
BENGALURU
O.S. NO. 8538/2017

BETWEEN:
Sri. Devaraj PLAINTIFF

183
AND:
Smt. Leelamma and

Others DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Naveen.S. Son of Shankar, aged about 23 years,

residing at No.39, Chamundeshwari Towers, Goverdhan
Garden, Yelachenahalli, J.C. Industrial Layout,
Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore-560 062.,do hereby
1. I submit that I am the first applicant/Proposed

Plaintiff No.2 herein and I know the facts of the case,
hence I am swearing to this affidavit on my behalf and
also on behalf of the 2nd applicant/proposed plaintiff No.3
who is my sister.
2. I submit that the plaintiff has filed the above suit for
the relief of partition and separate possession in respect
of the suit schedule property against the defendants. The
plaintiff is my elder uncle and my father is the defendant
No. . The suit schedule property is the ancestral and
joint family property in which myself and my sister are
also entitled for our legitimate share in the suit schedule
Property. My grand father has died intestate. The
Revenue documents and other relevant documents are
still standing in the name of my grand father. The
Plaintiff has not made us parties to the above suit in
which we are also having right, interest and share in the
suit schedule property.
184
3. I submit that we are not a party or witnesses to any

of the transactions taken place, as such we have got
definite share as grand children, we acquired the right
after the demise of my grand father and we have jointly
succeeded to the estate of our grand father and other
joint family properties. We recently came to know about
the pendency of the above suit, hence we are filing the
present application to implead ourselves as Plaintiffs
No.2 and 3 and we are also ready to pay the necessary
court fee. Hence it is just and necessary to permit us to
come on record as Plaintiffs No.2 & 3, our presence
before this Hon’ble court is very much essential to
adjudicate the matter effectively and completely. We have
got good case to contest on merits. Hence this
application.

myself and my sister will be put to great hardship and
legal injury, on the contrary no hardship or prejudice
would be caused to the any body in any manner.
Wherefore, I pray that this Hon’ble court may be

pleased to allow the annexed application as prayed for, in

185
Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate,
Bangalore
Date:
186

BENGALURU
O.S. NO.5473/2015
BETWEEN:
Smt. Chikkathayamma
AND:
Smt. Jayamma & another DEFENDANTS
LIST OF WITNESSES
1. Sri. Jayarama.
S/o
Aged Major,
Residing at No.3476,
5th Main Road, 5th Cross,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore.
2. Sri.Channappa,
S/o Narasimhaiah,
Major,
Residing at No.3481,
1st Cross Road,
Gayathrinagar,
Bengaluru.
Bangalore
Date; 7-3-2018 ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS
187
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION AT BANGALORE
R.A.(A)NO.362/2017-2018
BETWEEN:
Sri. Doddappagowda Shivasangappa Paitl, APPELLANT

188
AND:
The Tahsildar,
Anekal. RESPONDENT

CIVIL PROCEDURE, the Appellant above named prays
that for the reasons sworn to in the annexed affidavit,
this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to advance the
above case from 2-4-2018 to today for the purpose of
considering the Written Arguments, in the interest of
justice and equity.
Bengaluru
Date: ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT

R.A.(A)NO.362/2017-2018
BETWEEN:

189
AND:
The Tahsildar,
Anekal Taluk RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Doddappagowda Shivasangappa Paitl, S/o Late

Shivasangappa D. Patil, Aged about 56 years, Residing at
Sarjapura Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru Urban District., do hereby solemnly affirm
1. I submit that I am the Appellant in the above case

2. I submit that on the last date of hearing the above

matter was posted for arguments, due to non sitting of
the presiding Officer of this Hon’ble Authority, the matter
was adjourned to 2-4-2018, which is a long date. In order
to consider my Written Arguments it is just and
necessary to advance the above case from 2-4-2018 to
today. as the matter is most urgent for the consideration.
suffer irreparable loss and injury. On the other hand if
190


Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate
Bengaluru
Date:
No.of Corrs.
191

R.A.(A)NO.360/2017-2018
BETWEEN:
AND:
The Tahsildar,
Anekal Taluk

CIVIL PROCEDURE, the Appellant above named prays
that for the reasons sworn to in the annexed affidavit,
this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to advance the
above case from 2-4-2018 to today for the purpose of
considering the Written Arguments, in the interest of
justice and equity.
192
Bengaluru
Date: ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT

R.A.(A)NO.360/2017-2018
BETWEEN:
AND:
The Tahsildar,
Anekal Taluk
AFFIDAVIT


193

2. I submit that on the last date of hearing the above

matter was posted for arguments, due to non sitting of
the presiding Officer of this Hon’ble Authority, the matter
was adjourned to 2-4-2018, which is a long date. In order
to consider my Written Arguments it is just and
necessary to advance the above case from 2-4-2018 to
today. as the matter is most urgent for the consideration.
suffer irreparable loss and injury. On the other hand if


Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate
Bengaluru
194
Date:
No.of Corrs.
195

JUDGE AT ANEKAL
O.S. NO.1150/2015
BETWEEN:
R. Jayakumar PLAINTIFF
AND:
Rangappa and another DEFENDANTS
UNDER ORDER 23 RULE-3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, THE PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANTS
NO.6 & 7 FILES THE FOLLOWING COMPROMISE
PETITION AS HEREUNDER:-
1. The Plaintiff has filed the above suit for the relief of
partition and such other reliefs in respect of the suit
schedule property.
2. Due to the intervention of the well wishers and

elderly persons of both the parties, the dispute between
the plaintiff and the defendants No.6 and 7 has been
settled amicably as mentioned hereunder.
3. The defendants No.6 and 7 have agreed to pay a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff by way of Cheque
bearing No.916904 dated 18-10-2017, drawn on Vijaya
Bank, M.S.R.S. Nagar Branch, Bilekahalli, Bannerghatta
Road, Bangalore, drawn in favour of the plaintiff. The
196
plaintiff has received and acknowledged the receipt of the

said sum as full and final settlement.
4. In view of this compromise and settlement with

respect to the claim of the plaintiff over the suit schedule
property, the plaintiff has relinquished all his right, title
and interest over the suit schedule property by admitting
lawful possession and enjoyment of Defendant No.7
5. The Plaintiff has agreed to come and execute the

Confirmation Deed before the jurisdictional Sub Registrar
in favour of the Defendant No.7 confirming the sale
transaction between the defendants No.6 and 7 in
respect of the suit schedule Property without demanding
any amount to the satisfaction of the defendants No.6
and 7 and to ensure the right, title, interest and
possession over the suit schedule Property in their
favour.
6. The Plaintiff admits that the Defendant No.7 is in

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property and he has agreed and undertaken that he will
not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule Property from hereafterwards in any
manner. .
7. The Plaintiff further undertakes and assured that

he has not dealt with the suit schedule Property in any
manner by entering into any sort of contract Agreement
etc., with any third parties and in future if there is any
197
such transactions, the plaintiff undertook to settle the

same at his cost and risk and enable the defendants No.6
and 7 to hold possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule Property as an absolute owner thereof.
8. The Plaintiff has no objection whatsoever to the

defendants No.6 and 7 to obtain the Revenue entries in
their names in respect of the suit schedule Property.
9. The parties have entered into this compromise on

their own free will and volition without any body’s threat
or coercion from any body.
10. Parties to bear their own costs.
Wherefore, the plaintiff and the defendants No.6

and 7 pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased to record
this compromise and decree the suit in terms of this
compromise, in the interest of justice and equity.

1.
2.
ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS

No.6 & 7 No.6 & 7
198
Anekal
Date:
199
IN THE COURT OF THE SNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BENGALURU RURAL DIST. BENGALURU
O.S. NO.676/2010
BETWEEN:
1. Mr. M. Sandeep,
S/o Late Munivenkataramanappa
R/at No.981, III Stage,
4th Cross, New Thippasandra,
Bengaluru-560 075.
2. Mrs. Smithra,
W/o Krishna Murthy,
R/at No.981, III Stage,
4th Cross, New Thippasandra,
Bengaluru-560 075.
3. Smt. Sudha.N.
W/o Late Munivenkataramanappa,
Residing at No.981,
3rd Stage, 4th Cross,
New Thippasandra,
AND:
1. Sri. Kempaiah,
S/o Late P.V. Nagappa,
200
Old No.63, New No.1208,

1st Floor, 5th Cross,
Yeswanthapura,
Bengaluru-560 022.
2. Sri. Shankara,
S/o Kempaiah,
Aged major,
Yeswanthapura,
Bengaluru-560 022.
3. Smt. Ahalya,
W/o Ashwath,
Aged major,
Yeswanthapura,
Bengaluru-560 022.
4. Sri. Srinivas,
S/o Kempaiah,
Aged Major,
Yeswanthapura,
Bengaluru-560 022.
5. Sri. Dayavappa,
S/o Late P.V. Nagappa,
Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk,
6. Sri. Narayana Swamy,

S/o Dyavappa,
201
Aged about 42 years

Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk,
7. Smt. Nagarathna,
W/o Sri. Mahendra,
Triveni Road,
9th Main, 4th Cross,
Yeswanthapura,
Bengaluru-560 022.
8. Sri. Ramesh,
S/o Dyavappa,
Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk,
9. Sri. Surendra,
S/o Dyavappa,
Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk,
10. Sri. Manjunath,

S/o Late Muninarayanappa,
Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk,
11. Sri. Venkatarama,

Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli,
202
Hoskote Taluk,
12. Sri. Devaraja,

Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk,
13. Sri. Srinivasa,

Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk,
14. Sri. Muniraju,

Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk,
15. Sri. Pilla,

Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk,
16. Smt. Akkamma,

D/o Late P.V. Nagappa,
W/o Muniyappa,
Triveni Road,
9th Main, 4th Cross,
Yeswanthapura,
Bengaluru-560 022.
203
17. Smt. Thayamma,

D/o Late P.V. Nagappa,
W/o Late Chikkanna,
Major,
No.22, 9th “A” Cross,
2nd Stage, West of Chord Road,
Rajajinagar,
UNDER ORDER 39 RULE-1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION

151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, the
Plaintiffs above named prays that for the reasons stated
in the annexed affidavit this Hon’ble court be pleased to
grant an ad-interim order of Temporary Injunction,
restraining the defendants, their agents or any body
acting under or through them in any manner alienating
the suit schedule properties in favour of third parties,
pending disposal of the above suit, in the interest of
justice and equity.
SCHEDULE
1) All the piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.
No.277/2, measuring 2-06 guntas, Kushki land, situated
at Sulibele village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District and bounded on the:
East by: Land belonging to Sri. Ramagirinarayanappa

West by: Land belonging to Sri. Chikkavenkatappa
North by: Land belonging to Sri. Pillamunishamappa,
South by: Land belonging to Sri.Mariyappa & Dyavamma
2) All the piece and parcel of land bearing Sy. No.416,

measuring 2-00 Acres, Kushki land, situated at Sulibele
204
village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural

District and bounded on the:
East by: Land belonging to Sri. Narayanappa

West by: Land belonging to Sri. Attibele Narayanappa
North by: Land belonging to Sri. Gundappa and
South by: Land belonging to Attibele Narayanappa,

No.363/3 measuring 1 Acre 19 Guntas, Kushki land,
situated at Sulibele village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote
Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District and bounded on the:
East by: Land belonging to Sri. Krishnappa

West by: Land belonging to Sri. Narayanappa
North by: Land belonging to Defendants 10 to 15
South by: Land belonging to Defendants 10 to 15,
measuring 4 Acre 20 Guntas, Kushki land, situated at
Sulibele village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru
Rural District and bounded on the:
East by: Land belonging to Sri. P.V. Munikrishnappa

West by: Temple & Public Pond
North by: Land belonging to Rahamath Sabi
South by: Kaluve and Jayamma’s land,

measuring 1 Acre 28 Guntas, Kushki land, situated at
205
East by: Land belonging to Sri. P.V. Munikrishnappa

And Muniraju land,
West by: Land belonging to Sri. Marve Munishamappa
North by: Land belonging to Gullaiah,
South by: Kaluve,
Consisting of two borewells.

No.187/1, measuring 10 Guntas, Bhagayath land,
East by: Land belonging to Sri. Malleshappa

West by: Land belonging to Sri. Ramagirinarayanappa
North by: Land belonging to Dobi Munishamappa
South by: Land belonging to Defendants 10 to 15,
No.185/3, measuring 7 Guntas, Sy. No.186, measuring
30 ½ guntas and Sy. No.201/2, measuring 12 ½ guntas,
Bhagayath land, situated at Sulibele village, Sulibele
Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District and
bounded on the:
East by: Water canal and Beeranna,

West by: Survey No.203,
North by: Land belonging to Ramagirinarayanappa
South by: Land belonging to P.V. Ramaiah and P.V.
Narayanappa,
206

No.182/12, measuring 7 ½ Guntas, Kushki land,
East by: Pathway

West by: Land belonging to Dyavappa
North by: Road,
South by: Land belonging to Dyavappa and Pilla
Munishamappa.

measuring 1 Acre 12 Guntas, Bhagayath land, Sy.
No.258, measuring 0-38 guntas and Sy. No.259,
measuring 0-31 guntas, situated at Sulibele village,
Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District
common boundaries, bounded on:
East by: Land belonging to Sri. Ramaiah

West by: Land belonging to Sri. Mariyappa
North by: Land belonging to Lakshminarayana
South by: Land belonging to Narayanaswamy & others,

No.187/2, measuring 0-10 Guntas, Bhagayath land,
East by: Land belonging to Sri. Pilla Munishamappa

West by: Kaluve
North by: Land belonging to 5th defendant
207
South by: Land belonging to Pilla Munishamappa,

No.363/1, measuring 1 Acre 09 Guntas, Bhagayath
land, situated at Sulibele village, Sulibele Hobli, Hoskote
East by: Land belonging to Sri. Muniraju

West by: Land belonging to Sri. Narayanappa
North by: Land belonging to 5th defendant
South by: Land belonging to Narayanappa,

No.363/2, measuring 1 Acre 15 Guntas, Kushki land,
East by: Land belonging to Sri. Munivenkatappa

West by: Land belonging to Sri. Chikkamuniyappa
North by: Land belonging to Krishnappa
South by: Land belonging to 5th defendant,
13) All the piece and parcel of Vacant site bearing

No.330/1, 2, measuring 50 x 100 feet, situated at
East by: Land belonging to Sugaturu Muniyappa

West by: Kaluve
North by: Land belonging to Marve Munishamappa
South by: Road,
208
Bengaluru

BENGALURU
O.S. NO.676/2010
BETWEEN:
Mr. M. Sandeep
AND:
Sri. Kempaiah &

Others DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Mr. M. Sandeep, S/o Late

Munivenkataramanappa, aged about 33 years, residing
at No. 981, III Stage, 4th Cross, New Thippasandra,
Bengaluru-560 075, do hereby solemnly affirm and state
on oath as follows:

affidavit. I request this Hon’ble court to read the plaint
209
averments as part and parcel of this affidavit to avoid

repetition of facts.
2. I submit that the we have filed the above suit for the
relief of partition and separate possession in respect of
the suit schedule properties. I further submit that myself
and other plaintiffs and the defendants constitute Hindu
joint family members and there was no severance of joint
family status between the parties. Myself and the other
plaintiffs have got definite share in the suit schedule
properties. I further submit that at the time of filing of
the above suit I have filed similar application for seeking
Temporary Injunction, restraining the defendants from
alienating the suit schedule properties. This Hon’ble
court was pleased to grant an interim order as prayed for
and the same was in force till 2016. In the mean while I
had filed an application for amendment of the Plaint
schedule properties on the basis of the contentions raised
by the defendants in their Written statement. The said
application came to be allowed and the amendment was
also carried out. Subsequently the earlier counsel on
record gave NOC and as such I have to engage the
present Counsel on record. At the same time the interim
order could not be extended for the above said reasons in
not filing the proper application to continue/extend the
interim order.
3. I submit that after carrying out the amendment the

schedules of the plaint schedule properties were changed
with regard to measurements and boundaries etc., and
210
as such the earlier interim order became infructuous

granted by this Hon’ble court, now the defendants taking
advantage of this situation that too after leading my
evidence, the defendants are making attempts and secret
negotiations with the third parties to alienate the suit
schedule properties in favour of third parties in order to
create complications and multiplicity of proceedings and
to drag on the same. In this connection some of our well
wishers have informed that the defendants are making
attempts to alienate the suit schedule properties by
bringing the intending purchasers and showing them the
suit schedule properties and also explaining the details of
the land. The same was came to our knowledge in the
month of November 2017. I submit that our well wishers
have also enquired with us about the proceedings
whether the above suit is completed or not, and to the
result of the suit, for which I told them that the suit is
still pending and it is in the stage of cross examination
on our side.
4. I submit that the suit schedule properties are

belongs to joint family and ancestral properties of father
of plaintiffs and defendants, therefore the defendants do
not have any manner of independent right to deal with
the suit schedule properties without our knowledge and
consent and the defendants can not deal with the suit
properties at their whims and fancies. The Revenue
documents clearly reveals that the suit schedule
properties are standing in the name of my grand father
211
E.V. Nagappa. The defendants are making all sorts of

hectic efforts to alienate the suit schedule properties at
the throw away price in order to defeat our right and
share over the suit properties. Therefore it is just and
necessary to restrain the defendants by means of
Temporary Injunction. If the defendants are not
restrained at this stage, by this Hon’ble court from
alienating the suit schedule properties, it will leads to
multiplicity of proceedings and further I have to ……….
All such persons in the above suit, which will leads to
wastage of the precious time of this Hon’ble court in
disposing off the suit on merits at an early stage. I
further submit that if the defendants succeeds in their
illegal attempt in alienating the suit schedule properties
in which an event the innocent purchasers will be put to
irreparable loss and they may claim equity at the hands
of this Hon’ble court. The defendants are local people and
backed up with men and muscle power, capable of doing
any thing at any time in alienating the suit schedule
properties. We are not in a position to withstand the
illegal acts of the defendants without the aid and
assistance of this Hon’ble court.
5. I have made out a strong prima facie case and the

balance of convenience lies in my favour in granting the
interim order as prayed for in the annexed application.
The defendants will not loose any thing if the interim
order is granted. However the interim order sought for by
me is not in any way harm the defendants.
212
6. I submit that if the application is not allowed, we

will suffer irreparable loss and injustice. No prejudice
would be caused to the other side if the application is
allowed for the reasons stated above.

Court be pleased to allow the annexed application as
prayed for, in the above case, in the interest of justice
and equity.
I, the deponent herein do hereby state and verify

that this is my name an signature and the contents of
Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate,
Bengaluru
Date:
213
IN THE COURT OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,
BANGALORE
Case No. RRT (Dis.) No. 13/2017-18

BETWEEN:
Smt. B.N. Bhagya PETITIONER
AND:
Sri. Muralidhar RESPONDENT
THE RESPONDENT FILES THE FOLLOWING

OBJECTIONS TO THE ABOVE CASE AS HEREUNDER:
1. The application filed by the petitioner is not

maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence the prayer
214
of the applicant has to be rejected and therefore the

above case is liable to be dismissed.
2. It is submitted that this Respondent has purchased

the land bearing Sy. No.164, measuring to an extent of 3
Acres 37 guntas, situated at Vaddarapalya village,
(Somanahalli Vaddarapalya), Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk, Bangalore Urban District from it’s Vendor
under the Registered Sale Deed dated 22-9-2017 for
valuable consideration, the said Regd. Sale Deed is
available on record of this Hon’ble Authority.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has no right, title,

possession over the said property. If at all she has any
right over the said property same has to be claimed in
proper jurisdictional court and this Hon’ble Authority has
no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the
petitioner in the above case.
4. It is submitted that as per the K.L.R.Act and the
decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka it is the
boundan duty of this Hon’ble Authority to accept the
mutation of this Respondent once the registration is done
in accordance with law. In support of the case of this
Respondent, the Respondent is herewith producing the
citations:
i) ILR 2007 KAR 3400
ii) 2001 (2) KCCR 744.
Wherein the Hon’ble High Court clearly rendered the
decisions in favour of the registered purchaser.
215
Wherefore, in the light of the facts and

circumstances stated above, it is prayed that this Hon’ble
Authority be pleased to dismiss the application of the
petitioner and be pleased to accept the mutation in the
name of this Respondent on the strength of the
Registered Sale Deed, in the interest of Justice and
equity.
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT

RESPONDENT
VERIFICATION
I, the respondent above named do hereby declare

that what is stated above is true and correct, to the best
of my knowledge, information and belief.
Bangalore
Date: 16-12-2017 RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.
PURAM, BANGALORE
Case No. ADLR/T/CR 18/2016-17

BETWEEN:
Ramanjinappa and
Another PETITIONERS
AND:
Sri. Narayanaswamy
MEMO
216
The Second Respondent in the above case humbly

submits that the Second Respondent has filed her
detailed objections to the application filed by the
petitioner, the said objections may kindly be consider as
Written Arguments, in the interest of justice and equity.
Bangalore
Date: 15-12-2017 ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT
NO.2
217

PURAM, BANGALORE

BETWEEN:
Ramanjinappa and
Another PETITIONERS
AND:
Sri. Narayanaswamy
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FILES THE FOLLOWING

OBJECTIONS TO THE ABOVE CASE AS HEREUNDER:
1. The application filed by the petitioners is not

maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence the prayer
of the applicant has to be rejected and therefore the
above case is liable to be dismissed.
2. It is submitted that the Second Respondent had

filed a suit in O.S. No.1270/2006 for the relief of
partition and separate possession in respect of the suit
schedule properties against the petitioners and others in
respect of all the joint family properties including the
land bearing Sy. No.57/4, situated at Hirandahalli
village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore. The said suit is decreed in favour of this
Respondent after contesting by the other side.
218
3. On the strength of the preliminary decree FDP filed

in FDP. No.27/2017 on the file of the Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District and the same is
pending for adjudication. The copies of the Judgment is
already produced and the same is available on file. When
such being the state of affairs, the Revenue sketch
sought for by the petitioners does not arise at all.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioners have filed

only application to prepare the Revenue sketch in respect
of the land in question, without any documents
supporting to this application. It is learnt from the
application that one Munivenkatappa’s name is reflected
in the application except that no document has been
produced by the said petitioners, therefore on what basis
the said application was filed.
5. It is submitted that during the pendency of the FDP

your authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the said
application and the same is hit by law of Lis-pendence
and which leads to multiplicity of proceedings. The
Judgment and decree delivered by the Hon’ble Civil
Judge, Bangalore Rural District is a Judgment in Rem
and the same is binding on all the parties to the suit and
the authorities concerned also. It is further submitted
that the rights of the parties are not yet adjudicated
property in respect of the land in question. It is
submitted that the land in question is a valuable
219
property, hence the petitioners is trying to alienate the

said land by bit by bit in order to deprive the rights of
this respondent, in the event this Respondent will be put
to great hardship and it amounts to great miscarriage of
Judgment. It is submitted that there are no reasons
quoted by the petitioners in their application to consider
their prayer, as there is no any urgency in the matter to
consider the said application. Moreover he has not
produced any document in support of his application, on
what basis the sketch has to be prepared at this pre-
matured stage. If the application is rejected no prejudice
would be caused to the petitioners. The present
application is filed that too after passing of the Judgment
and decree and he is in hurry to wash away his hands by
any foul means, further the innocent purchasers will be
put to great hardship and irreparable loss. In order to
avoid all these happiness, it is just and necessary to
dismiss the application at his stage.
Wherefore, the Second Respondent prays that this

Hon’ble court be pleased to dismiss the application with
costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
ADVOCATE FOR SECOND SECOND

RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT
VERIFICATION
220
I, the Second respondent above named do hereby

declare that what is stated above is true and correct, to
the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Bangalore
Date: 15-12-2017 SECOND RESPONDENT
PURAM, BANGALORE

BETWEEN:
Ramanjinappa and
Another PETITIONERS
AND:
Sri. Narayanaswamy
MEMO
The Second Respondent in the above case humbly

submits that the Second Respondent has filed her
detailed objections to the application filed by the
petitioner, the said objections may kindly be consider as
Written Arguments, in the interest of justice and equity.
Bangalore
RESPONDENT
NO.2
221

R.A.(A)NO._________/2017-2018
BETWEEN:
AND:
The Tahsildar,
Anekal Taluk
UNDER SEC. 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, the

Appellants above named pray that for the reasons
sworn to in the annexed affidavit, this Hon’ble Authority
may be pleased to condone the delay if any in filing the
above Appeal and dispose off the same on merits, in the
Bengaluru
Date: ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS
222

R.A.(A)NO._________/2017-2018
BETWEEN:
AND:
The Tahsildar,
Anekal Taluk
AFFIDAVIT


223

2. I submit that after purchasing the land in question,

on 20-8-2014 I have made a representation before the
first Respondent to effect the Katha and Mutation in my
name in respect of the land in question as per the
Registered Sale Deed. Ever since from the date of
purchase I am in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the land in question and I was often and often visiting
the first Respondent office to know the status of the
representation given by me and my application is still
pending for consideration. The first Respondent neither
allowed my application nor conducted any enquiry on my
representation either making an thorough enquiry, I
enquired with the officials of the first Respondent for
which they stated that my representation is still pending
no action has been taken on the said representation and
I was under bonafide impression that my representation
will be considered within a short time.
3. I submit that recently I obtained RTC in which I

came to know that the Respondents No.2 and 3 have
with active collusion of first Respondent have managed to
change the Katha in their names and the said M.R. is
also reflected in the R.T.C. Immediately I enquired with
the officials of the first respondent, for which they
pleaded inability to rectify the same and further
suggested to redressal my grievances before this Hon’ble
Authority.
224
4. I submit that from the date of knowledge there is no

delay in filing the above appeal, however from the date of
effecting of Mutation in the name of Respondents No.2
and 3 there is some delay in filing this appeal, as I was
under bonafide impression that my representation which
is pending from 2014 will be considered by the first
Respondent, but the first Respondent has failed to do so.
4. I submit that The non filing of the appeal in time is

In time is not intentional, but due to the above said
bonafide reasons, as I was under the bonafide impression
as stated above. Hence it is just and necessary to
condone the delay if any in filing the above appeal in the
light of the facts and circumstances in the present
matter. Hence this application.
5. I submit that if this application is not allowed we

will suffer irreparable loss and injury. No prejudice would
be caused to the other side if the same is allowed.


225
Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate
Bengaluru
Date:
No.of Corrs.
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT


and I know the facts of the case and hence I am swering
to this affidavit.
226

JUDGE AT BANGALORE
O.S.NO.500/2013
BETWEEN:
Smt. Thimmakka PLAINTIFF
AND:
Smt. Munithayamma
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER V RULE 20 READ

PROCEDURE
227

affidavit, the Plaintiff in the above case prays that this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an order for service of
court notice to the Defendant No.2,9,11 & 12 through
substituted service i.e. by way of paper Publication in a
daily News paper Samyuktha Karnataka Kannada daily
news paper, in the interest of justice and equity.
Bangalore
PLAINTIFF

JUDGE AT BANGALORE
O.S.NO.500/2013
BETWEEN:
Smt. Thimmakka PLAINTIFF
AND:
Smt. Munithayamma
AFFIDAVIT
I, Smt. Thimmakka, D/o Late Chikka Papaiah, W/o
Narayanappa, aged about 60 years, residing at Begur
Village, Bagepalli Post, Hosur Taluk, Dharmapuri
228
District, Tamil Nadu, now at Bangalore, do hereby

1. I submit that I am the plaintiff herein and I know

the facts of the case. Hence I am swearing to this
affidavit. The averments made in the plaint may kindly be
read as part and parcel of this affidavit to avoid repetition
of facts.
2. I submit that after filing of the above suit I have

taken steps to the Defendants through Court as well as
by RPAD. The Notice sent to the Defendant No.2,9,11 &
12 have been returned unserved though they are very
much residing in the cause title address, the same is the
last known address of the Defendant No.2,9,11 & 12.
The Defendant No.2,9,11 & 12 are deliberately and
intentionally not receiving the summons & RPAD issued
by this Hon’ble Court since from several hearings. As I
can not serve the court notice to the said Defendant
No.2,9,11 & 12 in an ordinary way. Hence, it is just and
necessary to permit me to take steps against the
Defendant No.2,9,11 & 12 through substitute service
by way of paper publication to be published in
Samyuktha Karnataka kannada daily news paper.
3. I submit that if the annexed application is not

allowed I will be put to great hardship and
inconvenience. On the other hand if the application is
229
allowed no hardship or prejudice would be caused to the

Defendant No.2,9,11 & 12 in any manner.

Court be pleased to allow the annexed application as
prayed for, in the above case, in the interest of justice
and equity.

that this is my name an signature and the contents of
Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate,
Bengaluru
Date: 11-10-2017
230

BENGALURU (CCH-7)
O.S. NO.5555/2006
BETWEEN:
Smt. Susheelamma
AND:
Smt. Muniyamma and

Others DEFENDANTS
IN I.A
BETWEEN:
Smt. Susheelamma and

Others APPLICANTS
AND:
231
Smt. Muniyamma and

Others RESPONDENTS
UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ WITH SEC. 151 OF

C.P.C.
The Applicants above named request this Hon’ble

Court to grant them leave to amend the body of the Plaint
and Plaint Schedule as sought hereunder for the reasons
sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, in the interest of
justice and equity.
DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT SOUGHT

1, Add the following as Para-7 (a) of the Plaint:
Para-7(a) As the suit Schedule properties have been

sold in bits and pieces to various persons and as such it
is very difficult to trace the sale deeds of the said
properties but the plaintiffs have got the full name and
address of the purchasers of the same, who have been
arrayed as Defendants herein and the production of the
sale deeds of such purchasers, Defendants herein are not
much importance as the Defendants admit the purchase
of the bits and pieces of the suit schedule properties from
Late Muniyappa whose legal heirs are D-1 to D-19 and
further the said Late Muniyappa has executed the deeds
of conveyances in favour of the purchasers who are
arrayed as Defendants herein and further the plaintiffs
are not the parties to the said Sale Deeds and as such
they are not binding on the plaintiffs and the relief
232
sought in the suit is for partition it is not necessary to

seek cancellation of such sale deeds.
2. Add the following as Item No.3 of the suit Schedule;
Agricultural land in Sy. No. 125/1 measuring 2

Acre20 guntas, situated at Koudenahalli village, K.R.
Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, bounded on:
East by: Inamthi Land
West by: Land of Hanumaiah
North by: private property.
South by: Land of Muniswamy
3. Add the following as Item No.4 of the suit schedule:
Property bearing H.L. No.77, measuring East to West: 60

feet and North to South: On the Western side: 10 +
15+30/2 feet, consisting of Two houses, situated at
Kowdenahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, bounded on:
East by: Property of Chote Sab,

West by: Road thereafter Houses of Pyarusab and
Karim Sab,
North by: Road.
South by: Road
4. Add the following as Item No.5 of the suit schedule:
Property bearing H.L. No.35/1, measuring East to West:

72 feet and North to South: 68 feet, situated at
233
Koudenahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South

Taluk, bounded on:
East by: Property of Chote Sab now Masjid,

West by: Private Property
North by: Road
South by: Property of Sriramaiah
Bangalore
Date: ADVOCATE FOR
APPLICANTS/
PLAINTIFFS

BENGALURU (CCH-7)
O.S. NO.5555/2006
BETWEEN:
Smt. Susheelamma
AND:
Smt. Muniyamma and

Others DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
234
I, K.K. Anand Satish, son of Late P. Kariyappa, aged

about 40 years, residing at Koudenahalli village,
Dooravani Nagar Post, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East
Taluk being fully conversant with the facts of the case by
virtue of being the Applicant herein and 6 th Plaintiff in the
said suit, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as
follows:
1. I have the instructions from the other applicants to

swear to this affidavit and I have sworn to this affidavit
on their behalf also.
2. At the time of filing the suit we had with us the copy

of the partition deed dated 26-12-1971 but the contents
of the same required some clarification.
3. We got the clarification with regard to the recitals in

the said partition deed dated 26-12-1971 and after that
we have been advised to add the properties sought to be
included in the schedule by way of amendment. Hence
this amendment application.
4. The nature of the amendment sought does not in

any way alter the nature of the suit or its structure.
5. It is settled principle of law that in the suit for

partition all the joint family properfties are required to
be included in the suit to constitute a full fledged suit.
235
6. This Amendment application is absolutely necessary

for effective and efficacious disposal of the issues
involved in the suit.
7. The amendment sought in the suit is indispensable

and absolutely necessary.
Wherefore, I pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased

to allow the accompanying application as prayed for in

Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate,
Bangalore
Date:
No.of corrs.
236
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE JR. DIVISIONA

T BHADRAVATHI
C. Mis. No.94/2017
BETWEEN:
Smt. Nethravathi and

Another PETITIONERS
AND:
Sri. Lokesh RESPONDENT
OBJECTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITION

FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 125 OF
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
The Respondent respectfully submits as follows:

237
1. At the outset the petition filed by the petitioner is

not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence the
same is liable to be dismissed in limine.
2. The averments contained in para-1 of the petition

do not require any traverse as the same are formal in
nature
3. The averments made in para-2 of the petition that

marriage of the petitioner with the Respondent was
celebrated per Hindu Religion prevailing in their caste
and community on 17-2-2016 at Sri. Machideva Kalyana
Mantapa, Basaveshwara circle, Old Town,, Bhadravathi
in the presence of the elders, well wishers, relatives and
friends is true and correct. The further allegations in the
same para that prior to marriage the Respondent have
received Rs.1,00,000/- and more at the time of
engagement between them and at the time of marriage
the Respondent have received dowry amount of
Rs.1,00,000/-, 15 grams of Golden ornaments along with
silver articles, dress materials, utensils and other articles
prevailed in the community and that the parents of the
petitioner No.1 have borne the marriage expenses at the
cost of Rs.4,,00,000/- are all hereby denied as false,
frivolous and far from truth, the same are created and
concocted, the petitioner is put to strict proof the same.

the petitioner No.1 started her marital life with the
238
Respondent and their marital life was short lived and was
in existence for about three months only, later on dreams
of the petitioner No.1 was shattered to pieces and
deserted in a Oasis are all hereby denied as false,
frivolous, vexatious, tainted with malafide objects.

during the marital life between the petitioner No.1 and
respondent began to show his arrogant attitude and
behaviour towards the petitioner No.1 and would give all
types of pin pricks to petitioner No.1, although the
petitioner No.1 behaved as a dutiful wife towards the
Respondent, the respondent did not behave as a dutiful
husband are all hereby denied as false, frivolous,
vexatious, and the same are created story of the
petitioner in order to file the present petition to harass
the Respondent by making all sorts of false allelgations.

as days passed the respondent would come to the house
during late hours in drunkard stage and when
questioned of this by the petitioner No.1, the respondent
would beat her inhumanly and assault her like a animal
without humanity towards her,, yet the petitioner No.1
tolerated it, with a hope that respondent may mend his
behaviour and became a dutiful husband and attain
salvation in life are all hereby denied as false, frivolous,
vexatious and the petitioner No.1 is put to strict proof of
those allegations.
239

but the Respondent did not care to behave politely
towards his wife petitioner No.1 and would quarrel with
the petitioner No.1 for silly minute things, with intention
to throw out the petitioner No.1 from his house and was
successful in throwing out the petitioner No.1 and 2 from
his house after six months are all hereby denied as false
and incorrect, the same are created, concocted and the
stories invented by the petitioner No.1 to file the above
petition to harass the respondent.

the petitioner No.2 was born to her by their wedlock,
taking disadvantage that a female child is born by the
petitioner No.1 with deliberate and malafide intention to
cause great hardship, prejudice and trouble to both the
petitioners in not providing basic needs to the petitioners
are all hereby denied as false, frivolous, and the
petitioner No. l is put to strict proof of those allelgations.

the Respondent had illicit relationship with another lady
by name Pavithra W/o Madhu who is also one of the
married woman at her instigation the Respondent would
beat the petitioner No.1 inhumanly and failed to provide
maintenance for them at the instigation of that woman
Smt. Pavithra W/o Madhu, are all hereby denied as false,
frivolous, vexatious, the same are created and concocted
stories of the petitioner No.1.
240
10. The averments made in para-29of the petition that

the petitioner No.1 to bring more dowry from her parents
and else pressurized to bring golden Mangala Suthra
weighing 100 grams which was not affordable by parents
of the petitioner No.1 and would beat and use pressure
on her to bring Mangala Sutra of golden articles
weighting 100 grams along with more dowry amount are
all hereby denied as false, frivolous, vexatious, the same
are invented stories of the petitioner No.1.
.
when the petitioner No.1 refused to bring dowry or 100
grams of Mangala sutra,, the Respondent would scold,
insult and scold in all filthy language to the petitioner
No.1 and her parents causing mental agony and mental
annoyance to the petitioner No.1 by the act of
Respondent in not fulfilling the desire of petitioner No.1
and put her to mental agony and mental annoyance are
all hereby specifically denied as false, frivolous,
vexatious, and far from truth.

finally on one bad day the respondent have thrown out
the petitioners No.1 and 2 from his house and not made
any arrangement for their living towards their food,
clothing, medicines etc., about six months back from
thereon, the petitioners are staying at parents house of
the first petitioner are all hereby specifically denied as
false, frivolous, vexatious, and far from truth.
241

the Respondent is having sufficient source of income
through private bus driving and he is drawing about
40,000/- per month and is capable of paying monthly
maintenance towards his wife petitioner No.1 and her
daughter petitioner No.2 which he has neglected even as
a father and failed to show fatherly love towards
petitioner No.2 wherein his daughter is now deprived of
fatherly love from respondent are all hereby specifically
denied as false, frivolous, vexatious, and the same are
created stories of the petitioner No.1 just to file the
present petition.
.

they require Rs.8,000/- each per month i.e. Rs.16,000/-
from both maintenance per month towards their food,
medicines clothing etc., which the respondent is capable
of paying through his earning is denied as false. In this
connection the Respondent submits that the Respondent
is an agriculturist entirely depending upon rain based
agriculture, due to frequent drought the Respondent is
unable to grow any food grains and starving for his
livelihood. So also he has to lookafter his age old parents
who are entirely depending upon this Respondent and
also the parents of the respondent are suffering from old
age ailments.
242
15. There is no cause of action to file the above petition,

the one alleged in para-14 of the petition is an imaginary,
created and a story invented by the petitioners to file the
above petition and further there is no any specific date
for the cause of action to file the above petition,, on this
ground also the petition is liable to be dismissed.
16., True facts of the case:

a) The Respondent submits that the First petitioner
herself without the knowledge and consent of the
Respondent left the company of the Respondent from the
matrimonial home. It is further submitted that the
Respondent always ready and willing to take back the
first petitioner to the matrimonial home and he is ready
to arrange a separate house as demanded by the first
petitioner and also undertake to lookafter the petitioners
with great love and affection by providing all necessities.
In this regard on number of times the Respondent
approached the first petitioner and requested her to come
and join him at the matrimonial home to lead happy
marital life, but the petitioner No.1 on one or the other
pretext post poning the same and therefore the
Respondent convened several panchayaths in the
presence of the elders and well wishers which does not
yield any fruitful result. As a last resort the Respondent
got issued a legal notice dated 4-5-2017 calling upon the
first petitioner to come and join the Respondent at the
matrimonial home and to discharge her marital
obligations, Even after receipt of the said legal notice,
243
the first petitioner neither complied nor replied to the

said legal notice. The petitioner has not informed any
event after leaving the company of the respondent with
regard to monthly medical check ups during the
pregnancy time, birth of the child, performing of naming
ceremony rituals and other customs after the birth of the
child.
b) It is submitted that at the time of marriage, as per

the mutual understandings the marriage expenses were
born by the Respondent parents and first petitioner’s
parents in equal ratio. Apart from this, Respondent has
given expensive silk sarees, one gold ring (6 gams),
Mangalya with gold round gundus weighing 4 grams in
total 10 grams to the first petitioner. After the marriage
the first petitioner started living in the matrimonial
home at Bengaluru city at Kengeri. During her stay with
the Respondent, the Respondent looked after the first
petitioner well with great love, care and affection by
providing day today necessities.
c) It is submitted that thereafter the first petitioner

gave birth to a male child the age of the child is
approximately 4 months and the said child is in the
custody of the first petitioner and she is residing in her
parents house in Bhadravathi. It is submitted that
during her stay at Bangalore with the Respondent, the
Respondent used to often and often visit her parents
house without consent and permission and knowledge of
244
the Respondent and accordingly she was stayed with the

Respondent hardly for a period of three months. During
her stay with the Respondent, the petitioner No.1 was in
the habit of not listening the words of the Respondent
and his parents and without giving scant respect to the
Respondent and his parents. As per her will and wishes,
she was leading her life, then also the Respondent gave
advise to mend her attitude, but she continued without
changing her attitude and conduct towards the
Respondent.
d) It is submitted that during the pregnancy period,

the Respondent and his parents advised the first
petitioner not to travel frequently here and there, for
which she has given evasive replies and went to her
Aunti’s house in Vijayanagara without the consent of the
Respondent. At that time the Respondent and his parents
requested the first petitioner’s Aunty to advise the first
petitioner suitably and send back her to matrimonial
home so as to lead happy marital life, for which the first
petitioner came with her mother after two days. Even at
that time also the first petitioner was not given any
respect to the words of the Respondent and his parents.
However the Respondent and his parents have tolerated
all the pin pricks and cruelty meted out by her hoping
that she will mend her ways and lead happy marital life
with the Respondent.
245
e). It is further submitted that, during the stay of first

petitioner, she has not co-operated with the Respondent’s
parents in doing the house hold works, however the
Respondent’s mother being an aged was doing all the
house hold works, even at that time also the first
petitioner was not assisting or helping to the
Respondent’s mother. During the stay of the first
petitioner stay with the Respondent, she was in the
habit of keeping aloof in the house without mingling with
the Respondent or her in laws i.e. parents of the
Respondent. However the Respondent’s parents advised
her several times, but she continued her attitude as
was done earlier. It is submitted that as the first
petitioner was pregnant at the time, as per the advise of
Doctor and his parents, she was not suppose to travel
any where during that time, inspite of that the first
petitioner was in the habit of insisting the Respondent to
go to her parents house, during the time of Ashada Masa,
stating that she will come back within one week or 15
days. Thus the first petitioner left the matrimonial home
on 5-7-2016 when Ashada Masa was started. At the time
of leaving the matrimonial home the first petitioner took
away all her belongings including jewellery clothes etc.,
The Respondent submits that while the first petitioner
taking all her belongings, the Respondent advised her to
leave some clothes as she will returning to the
matrimonial home within short span of time, for which
the first petitioner told the Respondent she is having
small quantity of cloths as such she need all the clothes.
246
The Respondent submits that ever since from the date of

leaving the matrimonial home, the Respondent used to
call the first petitioner on telephone to return back to the
matrimonial home, but she went on postponing the
same by one or the other reason stating that after
completion of Ashada Masa she will return, but even
after completion of Ashada Masa she did not turned out
to the matrimonial home inspite of the Respondent’s
repeated requests and demands. Thereafter the
Respondent and his parents approached her in her
parents home and requested her to come and join the
company of the Respondent, for which the first petitioner
and her mother told that as she was pregnant at that
time once for all return back to matrimonial home soon
after completion of three months after the delivery of
Baby, for which Respondent and his parents have agreed
for the same.
f) The Respondent further submits that thereafter the

Respondent used to call her over phone enquiring about
her health condition and regarding the monthly check
ups. Even during her stay in her parents house, the
Respondent visited the first petitioner on several times,
but the first petitioner has not taken good care of the
Respondent. Inspite of the same the Respondent kept
quite hoping that she will set right her ways by one or
the other day in future.
g) The Respondent further submits that the first

petitioner gave birth to a male child on 5-12-2016 but
247
she has not given any information regarding the birth of

the baby to the Respondent, some how the Respondent
came to know the said fact of birth of the baby and
visited to her parents house by taking the cloths and
other required articles to the said baby. At that time the
first petitioner has not received the said articles even the
first petitioner refused to show the baby to the
Respondent or the first petitioner has not taken care of
the Respondent and his parents. Even after completion of
the three months after delivery, she has not kept up her
words in returning to the matrimonial home.
h). The Respondent further submits that on 5-2-2017

the Respondent visited to the parents house of the first
petitioner along with his close relatives and conveyed
panchayath in her parents house and requested her to
come back to the matrimonial home, at that time she
created a bad scene by removing the Thali from the neck
and removed the silver riggings from the legs stating that
her husband is already died in her view and there is no
relationship between the Respondent and the first
petitioner, and further she refused to come and join the
company of the Respondent to lead happy marital life.
The Respondent also requested her to hand over the
baby, but she refused to hand over the baby to the
Respondent’s custody. The Respondent further submits
that when according to the first petitioner, the
Respondent client dead for her, why she need the baby
and to hand over the same to the Respondent. But the
248
first petitioner told that she will call the police and see
that to get arrest the Respondent and thus harassing the
Respondent and necked away the Respondent from out
of her parents house. Inspite of all, these cruelty and
desertion meted out by the first petitioner, the
Respondent excused all the misdeeds of the first
petitioner and request her to come and join the
company of the Respondent and to lead happy marital
life. The Respondent is still in fond hope that the first
petitioner will mend her ways and come and live with the
Respondent and to discharge her marital obligations
towards the Respondent as a dutiful Hindu wife. The
Respondent is under deep mental agony, suffering from
untold misery and lost all his happy marital life for all
these years without her company, the first petitioner the
legally wedded wife of the Respondent and it is the
boundan duty of the first petitioner to discharge her
marital obligations with the Respondent, which she
miserably failed to do so without any just reason or
cause. All the efforts made by the Respondent in bring
back the first petitioner to the matrimonial home were
went in vain. From the date of desertion the petitioner is
running Flower shop in Hoskodihalli village and
sufficiently earning to lead the life of herself and her
minor son.
All the efforts made by the first Respondent in

bring back the petitioner to the matrimonial home were
went in vain.
249
Wherefore, under the above said facts and

circumstances, the Respondent most respectfully prays
that this Hon’ble court be pleased to dismiss the above
petition with costs, in the interest of justice and equity.
ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT RESPONDENT

VERIFICATION
I, the Respondent above named, do hereby declare
Bhadravathi
Date:28-9-2017 RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE JR. DIVISION

AT BHADRAVATHI
C. Mis. No.94/2017
BETWEEN:

Another PETITIONERS
AND:

250
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, Lokesh, S/o Jagadish, aged about 26 years,
residing at K. Gollahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, now at Bhadravathi, do hereby solemnly affirm
1. I am the Respondent in the above case and I am

well conversant with the facts of the case and hence I am
swearing to this affidavit.
2. I submit that the statements made in para –1 to

16(a) to (h) of the accompanying objection statement are
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and
information.
I, the deponent herein do hereby verify and state

Identified by me,
Advocate, DEPONENT
Bhadravathi
Date: 28-9-2017
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE JR. DIVISION

AT BHADRAVATHI
C. Mis. No.94/2017
BETWEEN:

Another PETITIONERS
AND:
251
MEMO
The Respondent in the above case prays that this

Hon’ble Court be pleased to consider the objections filed
to the Main petition by the Respondent may kindly be
treated as objections to the I.A. filed by the petitioner, in
the above case, in the interest of justice and equity.
Bhadravathi
RESPONDENT
252
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
P. & S.C.NO.300/2016
BETWEEN:
Vasu,
And another PETITIONERS
AND:
NIL RESPONDENT
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER- VII RULE- 14-A

READ WITH SEC. 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE

affidavit, the Petitioners in the above case pray that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to permit them to produce
the following original documents in support of their case,
by condoning the delay if any in filing the same, in the
DOCUMENTS SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED
1. Original Ration Card

2. Original Voter Identity Card of Ammaiah
3. Original Aadhar Card
4. Original Death Certificate of Venkatesh
5. Original Death Certificate of Ammaiah
6. original Provident Fund Bills -9 Nos. standing in the
name of Smt. Ammaiah
7. Original letter issued by the Employees provident
Fund organization dated 25-10-2016 informing the
253
Counsel for the petitioners to furnish the

Succession Certificate.
8. Original post Car sent by the Canara Bank dated 3-
8-2016 informing the Counsel for the petitioners to
appear before them along with all the death claim papers.
Bangalore
Date: Advocate for
Petitioners
254

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
P. & S.C.NO.300/2016
BETWEEN:
Vasu,
AND:
NIL RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Vasu, son of Late Goviundappa, aged about 45

years, residing at No.34’/1, 8th Cross, Near Shubha
Kannada School, Ganesha Temple Road, Near Ganga
Looms, Magadi Road, Bangalore-560 023, do hereby
1. I am the first petitioner in the above case and well

conversant with the facts of the case, hence I am
of petitioner No.2 who is none other than my younger
sister, who authorized me to do so
255
2. I submit that we have filed the above petition for

grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the amount
lying in the name of my elder Sister Smt. Ammaiah. We
usually used to call our elder sister as Ammayamma in
our day today life.
3. I submit that, at the time of filing of the above

petition I could not able to produce the original
documents as detailed in the annexed application, as the
same were misplaced in my house and on thorough
search I was able to trace the said documents. The said
documents are important and vital documents to
establish our case. The Non production of the said
documents at the time of filing of the above petition is not
intentional, but due to the above said bonafide reasons.
Hence it is just and necessary to permit me to produce
the original documents in support of my case. Hence this
application.

hardship or injury will be caused to any body. On the
other hand if the application is not allowed myself and
2nd petitioner will be put to greater hardship, loss and
inconvenience.
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may

be pleased to allow the annexed application as prayed
for, in the interest of justice and equity.
256

that this is my name and signature, the contents of this
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate
Bangalore
Date:
257

ANEKAL
O.S. NO.180/2017
BETWEEN:
Smt.S. Ramya Shree &

Another PLAINTIFFS
AND:
M. Srinivasa DEFENDANT
UNDER ORDER 23 RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE
DEFENDANT FILES THE FOLLOWING COMPROMISE
AS HEREUNDER.
After filing of the above suit due to intervention of

well wishers, elderly persons of both parties, the dispute
258
between the parties came to be settled amicably as

hereunder:-
1. The parties to this suit admit that the suit

properties are the joint family and ancestral parties of
both parties.
2. This Defendant admits that the Flats allotted in

favour of the plaintiffs in Janajeeva Splendour-I
Apartment built in Sy. No. 11/1, situated at
under the two different Release Deeds dated 5-6-2015,
and they are at liberty to hold, possession and enjoy the
same as they likes.
3. This defendant has obtained the Loan by
mortgaging the documents pertaining to the House
Property No.44/3/32, Old PID No. 57-241-32, presently
PID No. 178-W0027-2, measuring to an extent of 40 x 30
feet, situated at J.P. Nagar, Bangalore in State Bank of
Mysore, Sudhama Nagara Branch, Bangalore and this
defendant has undertaken to repay the same on his own
by the rents derived from the said property, he can
receive such rents till his life time but the defendant has
no manner of right, interest whatsoever on the said
house property except to receive the rents from the said
house property.
4. The Plaintiffs and Defendant admit that the mother

of the plaintiff has let out the premises to the tenants of
the House property situated in J.P. Nagar, both plaintiffs
259
and defendant have agreed and undertaken that the

rents derived from the said House property shall be
equally shared between the plaintiffs, the defendant has
no right or interest over the said property, in future
plaintiffs can deal with the said property as they like as
per the shares allotted to them.
5. This Defendant further undertakes and agreed to

allot the shares of the plaintiffs in other ancestral
properties of this defendant which are yet to be
partitionerd and which are not included in this suit and
the plaintiffs are at liberty to take action against this
defendant at an appropriate time.
6. This defendant further admits that this defendant

at no point of time deprived or denied the right and share
of the plaintiffs in the suit properties and in the other
joint family and ancestral properties, which are yet to be
partitioned between the family members of the defendant.
7. This defendant further undertakes and admits and

agreed that he has no manner of right or share over the
properties acquired by the mother of the plaintiffs namely
Smt. Gowramma along with her sisters under various
Gifts, Will and Sale Deeds i.e. Will dated 29-10-1994 vide
Regd. Document No. 93/1994-95, Book-3, registered in
the Office of the Sub Registrar, Kengeri, Deed of Sale
dated 27-11-2002, which is registered as Document No.
BNG(U)KNGR/ 15311/2002-03, in the office of the
Senior Sub Registrar, Kengeri and Gift Deed dated 11-5-
260
2007 which is registered as Document No. BNG(U)

JPN/952/2007-08, stored in C.D. No. JPND5, registered
in the office of the Sub Registrar, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore
and Gift Deed dated 13-11-2014 which is registered as
Document No. BSK-1-10158/2014-15, stored in C.D. No.
BSKD 291, Book-I, registered in the office of the Sub
Registrar, (Banashankari) Basavanagudi, Bangalore.
Apart from the above deeds, the first Defendant has also
executed a Regd. Gift Deed in favour of Smt. Gowramma
vide Reg. Gift Deed dated 5-6-2015, registered as
Document No. BGR-1-01432/2015-16, stored in C.D. No.
BGRD263, Book-I, in the office of the Senior Sub
Registrar, Begur, Bangalore, bequeathing the Residential
First Floor Flat bearing No. B-03 and another Second
Floor Flat No. 18, in Jana-Jeeva Splendour-I, situated at
Begur, Bangalore. The plaintiffs are at liberty to enjoy
and deal with the same as they like in respect of their
mother’s share as absolute owners. In that connection
the defendant will co-operate with the plaintiffs for any
purposes without claiming any share or any amount from
the plaintiff herein.
8. The plaintiffs and the defendant have taken

possession of their respective share allotted to them as
detailed below and they are at liberty to obtain the
Revenue entries in respect of their shares allotted under
this compromise, which are morefully mentioned as A, B
and C schedule morefully described in this compromise
petition. Further the Defendant has filed an application
261
to effect the phodi in respect of Item No.1 & 2 of Suit

Schedule properties, now the said land in Sy.No.70 is
phoded and assigned new Sy.No.70/3 and for the second
item Phodi is pending consideration. If at all any changes
made after the phodi in Sy.No. or Sub. Nos. will not
affect the rights of the parties of this Compromise
petition.
9. The parties have signed this compromise without

any body’s threat or coercion from any body, undue
influence and they have affixed their signatures on their
own free will and volition.
Wherefore, the plaintiffs and the defendant pray

that this Hon’ble court be pleased to decree this suit in
terms of this compromise, in the interest of justice and
equity.
A-Schedule Property allotted to the share of

Defendant M. Srinivasa:

No.1/1B, measuring to the extent of 16 (Sixteen) guntas
out of total extent of 1 Acre 12 guntas towards Western
side, situated at Rayasandra village, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, bounded on the:
East by: Property allotted to the share of Smt.
S. Ramya Shree,
West by: Property of Krishna Reddy
262

No.70, New Sy. No.70/3, situated at Rayasandra village,
Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, measuring 4 ½ (Four
and half) guntas, out of total extent of 12.08 guntas
towards the Eastern side, bounded on the:
East by: Property of Muni Reddy,

West by: Property allotted in favour of First Plaintiff
Smt. S. Ramya Shree,
B-Schedule Property allotted to the share of First

Plaintiff Smt. S. Ramya Shree:

No.1/1B, measuring to the extent of 18 (Eighteen) guntas
out of total extent of 1 Acre 12 guntas in the middle of
the property, situated at Rayasandra village, Sarjapura
East by: Property allotted to the share of 2 nd Plaintiff

Smt. S. Latha Shree,
West by: A-Schedule Property allotted to the share of
Defendant M. Srinivasa
263

No.70, New Sy. No.70/3, measuring to the extent of 4
(Four) guntas, out of total extent of 12.08 guntas,
Taluk, in the middle portion, bounded on the:
East by: Property allotted to the share of Defendant

Sri. M.Srinivasa,
West by: C-Schedule Property allotted in favour of the
Second plaintiff Smt. S. Latha Shree

Apartment bearing Flat No. A-05, of Ground Floor in
Janajeeva Splendour-I, Apartment built on Sy. No.11/1,
three Bed room, Kitchen, Living, Dining and Two Toiles
area of common use.
4) All that piece and parcel of Flat No.B-14 of First

Floor, measuring to the extent of 1170 Sq.ft of super built
up area, with 441 Sq. feet of undivided share on land
inclusive of one covered Car parking area in Stilt floor
264
with one hall two Bed rooms, Kitchen, Living, Dining and
Two Toilets with Mossaic/vetrified flooring, Sal/Teak
Wood doors & Windows with Civil all amenities and right
over the passages, common areas, Lobbies, stair case
and other area of common use.

178-W0027-2, situated at “Renuka Nilaya”, 13th Cross,
37th Main, J.P. Nagar First Phase, Bangalore-560 078,
feet, consisting of Ground, First and Second floor RCC
roofed building with all civic amenities, out of which half
portion towards Eastern side, measuring East to West:
20 feet and North to South: 30 feet, bounded on the:
East by: Private property,
West by: Property allotted to Latha Shree
North by: Private proeprty and
South by: Road
C-Schedule Property allotted to the share of Second

Plaintiff Smt. S. Latha Shree:

No.1/1B, measuring to an extent of 18 (Eighteen) guntas
out of total extent of 1 Acre 12 guntas, Eastern side,
Taluk, bounded on the:
East by: Property of Prakash Reddy,

265
West by: B-Schedule property allotted to the share of

Smt. S. Ramya Shree

No.70, measuring to the extent of 4 (Four) guntas out of
0-12 ½ guntas, situated at Rayasandra village, Sarjapura
East by: B-Schedule Property allotted to the share of

first Plaintiff S. Ramya Shree,
West by: Property of Prakash Reddy
3) All that piece and parcel of the residentiaol

Apartment bearing Flat No. C-07, of Second Floor in
Janajeeva Splendour-I, Apartment built on Sy. No.11/1,
three Bed room, Kitchen, Living, Dining and Two Toiles
area of common use.
266
4) All that piece and parcel of Flat No.D-16 Third Floor

in Janajeeva Splendour-I, Apartment built on Sy.
No.11/1, Naganathapura, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, measuring to the extent of 1170 Sq.ft of super
built up area, with 441 Sq. feet of undivided share on
one hall two Bed rooms, Kitchen, Living, Dining and Two
Toiles with Mossaic/vetrified flooring, Sal/Teak Wood

178-W0027-2, consisting with Ground, First & Second
floor of RCC roofed building, situated at “Renuka
Nilaya”, 13th Cross, 37th Main, J.P. Nagar First Phase,
Bangalore-560 078, measuring East to West: 40 feet and
North to South: 30 feet, out of which Western portion,
feet, bounded on the:
East by: Property allotted to S. Ramya Shree,

West by: Private property
North by: Private property
South by: Road
1.
2.
267
VERIFICATION
We the plaintiffs and defendant do hereby state that
what is stated above are true and correct to the best of
1.
2.
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANT
Anekal
Date:
268
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SECOND CIVIL

JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT
BENGALURU
269
O.S.NO.546/2017
BETWEEN:
R. Nagabhushana Reddy
AND:
Suresh and others DEFENDANTS
UNDER ORDER XXIII RULE-3 OF THE CODE OF CIFIL

PROCEDURE
The Plaintiff and the defendants files the following

Compromise petition as hereunder:-
At the intervention of the well wishers and elderly

persons of both the parties, the matter in controversy
came to be amicably settled on the following terms and
conditions.
1. The above suit is filed for the relief of permanent

injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit
schedule property. The defendants filed their Vakalath
and also filed Caveat petition.
2. The plaintiffs and the defendants have admit and

agreed that there is no interse dispute between them with
regard to the ownership right over their respective
properties.
3. The defendants admit and agreed that the extent

claimed by the defendants has to be reduced to the
extent of 2 guntas each in their respective extent and
270
measurements. The plaintiffs further agreed that in the

event of Kharab land whatever is available after survey,
the same shall be belongs to the defendants and the
plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or possession
over the said Kharab land.
4. The Plaintiffs and the defendants have agreed to

conduct Phodi and survey of their respective lands and
the measurements can be reduced to the extent of 2
guntas in each of the defendants lands and fix the
boundaries.
5. The Plaintiffs and the defendants agreed and

undertaken that they will not interfere with each others
lands in any manner herein after wards.
6. The Plaintiffs and the defendants agreed that in the

event of any statements or declarations has to e given
before the Revenue authorities, in which undertakes to
appear and give such statements and declarations
without demanding any consideration from the plaintiffs.
7. The defendants undertakes that they will not in any

way disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the plaint schedule property or made any sort of claims
in future, measuring to the extent of 1 Acre 38 guntas.
8. The Plaintiffs and the defendants have entered into
this compromise on their own will and wish without any
body’s threat, coercion or undue influence from any body
and the contents of this compromise were read over to
271
the parties and after knowing the same affixed their

respective signatures.
9. The plaintiffs have filed R.A. (S) No.88/2016-17 on

the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South
Sub Division, Bangalore challenging the Revenue entries
of the defendants in M.R. No.104/2005-06, for which the
defendants have no objection to remand back the same
to the Tahsildar for fresh entries after enquiry under the
provisions of KLR Act.
Wherefore, the Plaintiffs and the defendants pray

that this Hon’ble court be pleased to record this
compromise and decree the suit in terms of this
compromise, in the ends of justice and equity.
1.
2.
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS PLAINTIFFS.

1.
2.
3.
4.
ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANTS DEFENDANTS
VERIFICATION
272
We the Plaintiffs and the defendants herein, do

hereby declare that what is stated in para-1 to 9 are
true to the best of our knowledge, information and belief.
1.
2.
PLAINTIFFS.
1.
2.
3.
4.
DEFENDANTS
Bengaluru
Date:
273
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE

AT BENGALURU
M.C.NO.__________/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Gangaraju.C. @
Chikka Gangaraju,
S/o Chikkanna,
No.178, Vijayaraju Building,
15th Cross, Shivapura,
Bengaluru-560 058 I PETITIONER
2. Smt. Shilpashree,
W/o Gangaraju.C. @
Chikka Gangaraju,
R/at No.11, 7th Cross,
Lakshmi Venkateshwara
Nilaya, Shivapura, Behind
Chandra Medicals,
Bangalore. II PETITIONER
AND:
NIL RESPONDENT
UNDER SECTION 13-B OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE

ACT 1955
274
The above named petitioners No.1 & 2 submits as

follows:
1. The address of the petitioners for the purpose of

service of summons, notices etc., from this Hon’ble
Court, is as stated above in the cause title. The
Petitioners are represented by his Counsel Sri. B.H.
Chikkanna, Advocate, No.10, 6th Cross, Sapthagiri
Layout, Behind Sapthagiri Medical College,
Chikkasandra, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioners submit that the petitioners are

Hindus by religion and their marriage was solemnized on
9-5-2007 at Sri Byraveshwara Samudaya Bhavana,
Dodda Bidarakallu, Nagasandra Post, Bangalore-560 073
in the presence of the elders and well wishers and friends
as per the Hindu rites and customs prevailed in their
community and the same was an arranged marriage
arranged by the elders of both the family and also
completed Sapthapadi formalities as per Hindu customs
and rituals and both of them have consummated. The
marriage Invitation Card, marriage photographs, Voter
Identity Card are produced as DOCUMENTS NO.1 to 3
for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
3. It is submitted that after their marriage they were

living as husband and wife in the residence of first
petitioner at Bengaluru till 20-12-2016. They discharged
their respective marital obligations towards each other.
275
Out of their wedlock the 2nd petitioner gave birth a male

child on 20-6-2008 who is named as Bhuvan.G. now he
is studying in 4th Standard under the care and custody of
the 2nd petitioner. However the first petitioner has been
maintaining the said child by providing all his medical,
educational expenses and day today necessities.
4. It is submitted that the Second petitioner joined

her husband in the matrimonial house and they lead
conjugal life for a period of seven years from the date of
marriage. During the stay of the 2 nd petitioner with the
first petitioner there were quarrels for petty matters
between the petitioners frequently due to incompatibility,
misunderstandings and also non co-operation of marital
relationship. Due to misunderstandings the marital
relationship has strained their family life. Thereafter
differences croped up between the petitioners to the
high level in the recent days, on account of which they
could not adjust with each other. Soon after the marriage
there were difference in temperaments, habits, tastes
thoughts and incompatibility in between the petitioners.
The relationship deteriorated between the petitioners day
by day, however the petitioners tolerated all their
misunderstandings to safeguard the family dignity and
for the best interest of the minor child..
5. It is submitted that in view of the petitioners

misunderstanding and non co-operation the relatives
well wishers and friends of the both the parties have
tried their level best to patch up their differences on
276
many occasions. They also tried their level best to

reconcile the matter and advised them to live happily for
the sake of best interest of the minor child. But their
efforts were went in vain. In this connection there were
many panchayaths were held between the petitioners.
However they could not live together and therefore they
decided to live separately. Finally they are living
separately from 20-12-2016. The Second petitioner
started to live separately at Bengaluru in her parents
house.
6. It is submitted that they are living separately since

from 20-12-2016 due to misunderstanding, non co-
operation and incompatibility and there are no chances
of reconciliation. They are not in a position to live
together as husband and wife nor capable of settling the
issues amicably. Therefore having no any other
alternative the petitioners have decided to file this
petition jointly for the dissolution of their marriage
solemnized on 9-5-2007 by mutual consent.
7. It is submitted that both the petitioners confirms

that there is no force, collusion, fraud, coercion or any
undue influence upon any one either directly or
indirectly and the petitioners have signed this petition on
their own free will and wish to take the divorce by mutual
consent in filing this joint present petition.
8. The Second petitioner submits that the 2nd

petitioner and her parents have taken back all
277
belongings of the second petitioner i.e. Gold ornaments,

Cloths, Cot, Almirah and also the gold jewellary from
the first petitioner which were given to him at the time of
marriage.
9. The First petitioner submits that, on 1-4-2017 the

first petitioner has purchased a Site bearing No.69, in
Property Assessment No.53, situated at Kammasandra
village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in the
name of his minor son, rep. by his natural guardian and
mother Smt. Shilpa Shree the 2nd petitioner herein
through Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.
DSP-1-00007/2017-18, stored in C.D. No.DSPD239,
dated 3-4-2017, Book-I, registered in the office of the Sub
Registrar, Dasanapura, Bangalore. The first petitioner
has paid the entire sale consideration amount and other
incidental charges for the registration of the said site.
The First petitioner has come forward to relinquish all his
right and interest over the said site in favour of the minor
son and the 2nd petitioner towards as permanent alimony
and further the first petitioner has no objection for the
custody of the minor son with the 2 nd petitioner. The 2nd
petitioner has agreed to take the custody of the minor
child and bring up the minor child by providing food,
clothing, medical, good education and other day today
necessities of the minor child. Similarly the second
petitioner has no objection of whatsoever for the first
petitioner to visit and to see the minor child once in a
week at her residence during Sundays without affecting
278
the minor future prospects. Further the 2nd petitioner

agreed and undertaken that she will not claim any
maintenance or permanent alimony or any share in
movable or immovable properties of the first petitioner in
future apart from the above said site.
10. The cause of action for this petition arose on 9-5-

2007 when the marriage of the petitioners was
solemnized and on 20-12-2016 when the petitioners
have started living separately and subsequently and
residing within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
11. The petitioners submits that the Second petitioner

has no any claim of whatsoever against first petitioner.
Either of the petitioners shall have no manner of right,
title or interest over the movable or immovable properties
which may be acquired in future.
12. The petitioners have last resided together at

Bengaluru City, hence this Hon’ble court has got
jurisdiction to try this case.
13. It is submitted that their marital relationship has

deteriorated to such an extent that any chance of
retrieving the same is absolutely impossible. Hence the
petitioners have decided to approach this Hon’ble Court
for decree of divorce.
14. That there is no other case or petitions pending

before this Hon’ble court or before any other court of law
for the above said relief.
279
15. The requisite court fee is paid on this petition.
Wherefore, the petitioners pray that this Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to:
a) Pass Judgment and decree of divorce dissolving
the marriage of the petitioners which was
solemnized on 9-5-2007 at Sri Byraveshwara
Samudaya Bhavana, Dodda Bidarakallu,
Nagasandra Post, Bangalore-560 073 by mutual
consent;
b) And to grant such other suitable relief/s as this
Hon’ble court deems fit to grant under the facts
and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity.
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS

PETITIONER NO.1
PETITIONER
NO.2
VERIFICATION
We the Petitioner No.1 and 2 herein, do hereby
declare that what is stated in para-1 to 15 are true to
the best of our knowledge, information and belief.
1.
2.
PETITIONERS
280
Bengaluru
Date: 5-7-2017

AT BENGALURU
M.C.NO.__________/2017
BETWEEN:
Chikka Gangaraju I PETITIONER
2. Smt. Shilpashree II PETITIONER
AND:
NIL RESPONDENT
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
We, 1) Sri. Gangaraju.C. @ Chikka Gangaraju, S/o
Chikkanna, Aged about 36 years, No.178, Vijayaraju
Building, 15th Cross, Shivapura, Bengaluru-560 058 and
(2) Smt. Shilpashree, W/o Gangaraju.C. @ Chikka
Gangaraju, Aged about 28 years, R/at No.11, 7th Cross,
LakshmiVenkateshwara Nilaya, Shivapura, Behind
Chandra Medicals,Bangalore.. do hereby solemnly affirm
1. We are the petitioners in the above case and we are

well conversant with the facts of the case and hence we
are swearing to this affidavit. We have filed the above
281
joint petition seeking the relief of divorce of divorce by

mutual consent.
2. We submit that the statements made in para –1 to

15 of the accompanying petition are true and correct to
the best of our knowledge, belief and information.
3. we submit that the documents produced in this

case are the originals.
We, the deponents herein do hereby verify and

state that these are our names and signatures and the
of our knowledge, belief and information.
Identified by me,
Advocate, DEPONENTS
Bengaluru
Date: 5-7-2017
AT BENGALURU
M.C.NO.__________/2017
BETWEEN:
AND:
NIL RESPONDENT
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 13 OF THE FAMILY

COURT ACT

affidavit, the Petitioners 1 & 2 in the above case most
282
respectfully prays that this Hon’ble court be pleased to

permit them to engage the services of an Advocate to
prosecute the above case on merits, in the interest of
justice and equity.
1.
Bangalore 2.
Date: 5-7-2017 PETITIONERS

AT BENGALURU
M.C.NO.__________/2017
BETWEEN:
AND:
NIL RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
We, 1) Sri. Gangaraju.C. @ Chikka Gangaraju, S/o
Chikkanna, Aged about 36 years, No.178, Vijayaraju
Building, 15th Cross, Shivapura, Bengaluru-560 058 and
283
(2) Smt. Shilpashree, W/o Gangaraju.C. @ Chikka

Gangaraju, Aged about 28 years, R/at No.11, 7th Cross,
LakshmiVenkateshwara Nilaya, Shivapura, Behind
Chandra Medicals,Bangalore.. do hereby solemnly affirm
1. We submit that we are the petitioners in the above

case and well conversant with the facts of the case, hence
we are swearing to this affidavit. We have filed the above
petition for a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
2. We submit that we are not acquainted with the

legal proceedings and procedure to prosecute the above
case, hence we may be permitted to engage the services
of an advocate to prosecute the above case on our behalf.
3. We submit that if this application is not allowed and
we are not permitted to engage the services of an
Advocate, we will be put to great hardship.
Wherefore, we pray that this Hon’ble court be

pleased to allow the accompanying application as prayed
We, the deponents herein do hereby verify and state

that these are our names and signatures and the
Identified by me, 1.
284
2.
Advocate, DEPONENTS
Bangalore
Date: 5-7-2017
No.of corrs.

AT BENGALURU
M.C.NO.__________/2017
BETWEEN:
AND:
NIL RESPONDENT
INDEX
285
No. Fee
1. The Memorandum of Petition
Under Section 13(B) of Hindu
Marriage Act
3. List of Documents & Documents
4. Vakalathnama
5. Applicatioon Under Section 13 of
Family Court Act with Affidavit
6. Second Set

Bengaluru
Date: 5-7-2017

AT BENGALURU
M.C.NO.__________/2017
BETWEEN:

286
AND:
NIL RESPONDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1. Marriage Invitation Card,

2. Marriage Photographs
3. Voter Identity Card of first petitioner

Bengaluru
Date: 5-7-2017

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
P. & S.C.NO.300/2016
BETWEEN:
287
Vasu,
AND:
NIL RESPONDENT
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 READ

WITH SEC. 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

affidavit, the Petitioners in the above case pray that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to permit them to amend
the petition by incorporating the below mentioned
proposed amendment, in the interest of justice and
equity.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
1. In Para-2, 4th and 6th line, in para-3 in 2nd line,

para-4 2nd line, para-5 in third line, para-6 in 2 nd line,
para-7, in 2nd line, para-8 in 2nd line, para-9 in 7th line,
para-10 last line, para-13 last line, para-14, in 3 rd line
and in 4th line of the prayer delete the name of
Ammayamma and in that place insert the name as
Ammaiah.
Bangalore
Date: Advocate for
Petitioners
288

JUDGE AT BENGALURU
P. & S.C.NO.300/2016
BETWEEN:
Vasu,
AND:
NIL RESPONDENT
AFFIDAVIT
I, Vasu, son of Late Goviundappa, aged about 45

years, residing at No.34’/1, 8th Cross, Near Shubha
Kannada School, Ganesha Temple Road, Near Ganga
Looms, Magadi Road, Bangalore-560 023, do hereby
1. I am the first petitioner in the above case and well

conversant with the facts of the case, hence I am
of petitioner No.2 who is none other than my younger
sister, who authorized me to do so
2. I submit that we have filed the above petition for

grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the amount
lying in the name of my elder Sister Smt. Ammaiah. We
usually used to call our elder sister as Ammayamma in
our day today life.
289
3. I submit that, at the time of filing of the above

petition by mistake or due to inadvertence the name of
my elder sister is wrongly mentioned as Ammayamma
instead of Ammaiah in the averments and in prayer
column of the petition, the same is due to inadvertence
or typographical error and not intentional, the said
mistake came to my knowledge when my Counsel
preparing the evidence affidavit, hence it is just and
necessary to permit me to carry out the proposed
amendment. Hence this application.

hardship or injury will be caused to the Defendants. On
the other hand if the application is not allowed myself
and 2nd petitioner will be put to greater hardship, loss
and inconvenience.
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court may

be pleased to allow the annexed application as prayed

that this is my name and signature, the contents of this
affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate
Bangalore
Date:
290
291
IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

LND-RA(S) 04/2015-16
BETWEEN:
The Tahsildar,
Bangalore South Taluk APPELLANT
AND:
Krishna Maniyan
Sri. Nithyananda &

Ganesh Babu APPLICANTS/
RESPONDENTS 10 &
11
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

affidavit, the Applicants/Respondents No.10 & 11 in the
above case, most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble
court be pleased to split-up the records of this
Respondents and to proceed/order in the above case
separately, in the interest of justice and equity.
Bangalore
Date: -9-2016 ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANTS/
RESPONDENTS 10 & 11
292

LND-RA(S) 04/2015-16
BETWEEN:
The Tahsildar,
AND:
Krishna Maniyan
Sri. Nithyananda &

RESPONDENTS 10 &
11
AFFIDAVIT
I, Nithyananda, Son of Late Y.L. Rama Reddy, aged

about 56 years, residing at No.60/5,1-1, 3rd Cross, North
Main Road, 6th Block, Jayanagar, Yadiyur, Bangalore-82,
do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I submit that I am the Respondent No.10 in the

above case and I know the facts of the case, hence I am
of Respondent No.11 who is none other than my brother.
2. I state that the petitioner has initiated the above

proceedings against ourselves and other Respondents
under Section 108 (K) of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act on false and frivolous grounds. I submit that the
original Grantee Bhaskarachari S/o Kondachari has
293
executed a Registered WILL in our favour and came to be

died on 26-6-2011. After his demise we became the
absolute joint owners as per the WILL. Thereafter we are
in lawful possession and enjoyment of the land in
question by personally cultivating the said land. The
notice was sent to the original grantee, on coming to
know about the said fact, we filed impleading application
and we brought on record as Respondents No.10 & 11.
Thereafter we filed our detailed objections and also
produced necessary documents to prove our case.
Thereafterwards we have also filed Written Arguments
and the matter was reserved for orders on 13-4-2016.
Thereafter we learnt that orders will be passed in one or
two months in the office. Accordingly we were waiting
and also we enquired often and often with the concerned
case workers, but till today no order is passed in the said
proceedings even after lapse of several months. Hence it
has caused great hardship to us and we are under the
fear that order may be passed against us and the
Government may resume the land in question in their
custody.
3. I further submit that, I came to know through the

case workers that there are lot of respondents in the
above proceedings and it is causing delay in passing the
orders in the above case and further suggested to consult
your advocate and to make necessary applications by
requesting the Hon’ble Authority either to pass orders or
to make alternate arrangement. Hence this application.
294
3. If the annexed application is not allowed myself and

Defendant No.11 will be put to great hardship and
injury. On the other hand if the application is allowed no
prejudice would be caused to the other side.
Wherefore I most respectfully prays that this

Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the accompanying
application as prayed for, in the interest of justice and
equity.

Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate
Bangalore
Date: 26-9-2016
295
IN THE COURT OF THE PRCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,

BANALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.468/2016
BETWEEN:
Ganga Byrappa PLAINTIFF
AND:
Nagesh DEFENDANT
296
UNDER ORDER VIII RULE-1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE THE DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED FILES
THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN STATEMENT AS UNDER:
1. The suit filed by the plaintiff for the alleged relief of

Specific performance of the contract in respect of the suit
schedule property is not at all maintainable either in law
or on facts. Hence, the same is liable to be dismissed in
limine.
2. The plaintiff has suppressed the true facts and filed

the above suit on false and frivolous grounds. As such
the plaintiff is guilty of suppression-vari and suggestion-
false.
3. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the

present suit and the one alleged in the plaint is denied as
false.
4. The averments of Para-2 of the plaint is with regard

to ownership of the defendant is true and correct.
5. The averments of Para-3 of the plaint is also true

and correct. The facts narrated therein is nothing but the
defendant’s right and mode of acquisition of the suit
property, is true and correct.
6. The averments of Para-4 of the plant with regard to

the defendant approached the plaintiff in the second
week of October 2013 and offered to sell the property
297
described therein in order to meet his family and legal

necessities is absolutely denied as false. There is no
reason or cause for the defendant to sell the suit
schedule property for the alleged sale consideration of
Rs.4,50,000/-, the defendant is denied that he has not
at all received the alleged advance amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- on the date of the alleged agreement of
sale. There is such alleged Agreement of sale dated 23-
10-2013 was entered into between the Plaintiff and the
defendant and the defendant never received in cash the
said advance of Rs.4,00,000/-. The further averments in
the said para that the defendant taken long time for
completion of the sale deed is also denied as false. It is
true that the plaintiff has received the original sale deed
of the suit schedule property, but the same was not
handed over in connection with the alleged sale
Agreement but the same is handed over in connection
with the loan transaction. This fact has been suppressed
by the plaintiff. The said document was received for the
purpose of security for repayment of the loan amount.
This itself goes to show that the plaintiff and the
defendant have not entered into the alleged Agreement of
Sale in respect of the suit schedule property. It is false to
state that the defendant has agreed to furnish the Tax
paid Receipt as stated in para-4 of the plaint. It is only a
created story of the plaintiff just to file the present suit.
7. The averments of Para-5 of the plaint is entirely a

created story. The plaintiff never visited the house of the
298
defendant to tell his ready and willingness to perform his

part of the contract and this defendant never answered to
the plaintiff as stated in the said para, it is a created
story of the plaintiff just to file the present suit. When
there is no alleged Agreement of sale, the question of
visiting the house of the defendant to show his alleged
ready and willingness does not arise at all. The further
averments in the said para that the defendant asked the
plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for obtaining the “E”
Katha and plaintiff paid the said amount is denied as
false. At no point of time the defendant had requested to
pay the said amount and he never said about obtaining
the “E” Katha. The same are created story of the plaintiff
just to file the present suit. The further averments of the
same para is entirely created story of the plaintiff and
just to file the present suit. At any point of time, there
exists the alleged Agreement of Sale, hence the question
of extension of time and writing the shara is entirely
denied as false. It is only a created shara of the plaintiff
to over come the latches and lapses on the part of the
plaintiff and to make unlawful gain from the property of
the defendant.
8. The averments of Para-6 of the plaint is denied as
false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. At
no point of time the plaintiff enquired about in person
and phone about the progress of the “E” Katha. The
further averments in the said para that the defendant
used to put off the dates by one or the other reason is
denied as false. When there is no alleged contract
299
between the plaintiff and the defendant, the question of

procuring “E” Katha nor dodging the time does not arise
at all. The plaintiff is making unwanted allegations
against the defendant.
9. The averments of Para-7 of the plaint with regard to

the alleged payment of 95% of the sale consideration as
per the Agreement dated 25-10-2013 and shara dated
28- -2015, is denied as false, and further the defendant
is bound to execute the sale deed after getting “E”Katha
is nothing but cock and bull story of the plaintiff just to
file the present suit. When there is no alleged agreement
of sale, the question of payment of 95% does not arise
and further intimating the plaintiff about “E” katha also
does not arise. The further averments in the said para is
entirely denied as false. It is further denied as false that
the defendant has obtained all the documents and “E”
katha is denied as false. When there is no alleged
Agreement of sale, the question of issuance of the notice
and to issue reply does not arise at all. The true facts
will be stated in the proceeding paras of this Written
Statement.
10. The averments of Para-8 of the plaint is denied as
false. When there is no alleged Agreement of Sale, the
question of demands made by the plaintiff with the
defendant to perform his part of the contract does not
arise at all. The rest of the averments in the same para
that the suit for filing of specific performance as per the
alleged sale agreement dated 28-5-2013 and shara dated
300
28- -2015 is denied as false and the plaintiff is not

entitled for any of the reliefs from this Hon’ble court.
11. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged in

para-10 of the plaintiff. The dates mentioned in the cause
of action is a created cause of action to file the present
suit.
12. The Plaintiff has not paid sufficient court fee on the
plaint.
13. The plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs as

sought for in the plaint.
14. The true facts of the case are that, the plaintiff and
the defendant are known persons. Hence there was
money transaction between the plaintiff and the
defendant. At that time the plaintiff is in the habit of
obtaining signatures of the defendant on blank papers
and used to obtain the blank signed cheques without
mentioning date amount etc., and accordingly the
defendant had given cheques and signature of the
defendant on the papers required by the plaintiff and
after payment, the plaintiff used to return the
documents. Similarly the defendant availed Loan from
the plaintiff during the year 2013. At that time the
plaintiff used to took signatures of the defendant on
blank papers and issued blank signed cheques as
demanded by the plaintiff, and thus availed hand loan of
Rs.50,000/-. Due to financial difficulties the defendant
301
could not pay the monthly interest, for which the plaintiff
has demanded the defendant to deposit the registered
Sale Deed of the property of the defendant for security
purpose. Hence the defendant has handed over the
original sale deed to the plaintiff, even after that the
plaintiff started demanding the defendant often and often
to pay the loan amount along with interest and used to
pick up quarrels in front of the house of the defendant,
for which the defendant has resisted the illegal acts of
the plaintiff in the year 2013 itself. Hence the plaintiff
has hatched up a plan to knock off the valuable property
of the defendant and thus created the Agreement and
shara on the blank papers which were obtained at the
time of loan transaction. The Agreement dated and the
shara itself goes to show that the true facts of the case
before this Hon’ble court and which itself proves the
defendant’s case and on the basis of this only, this
Hon’ble court can dismiss the suit without taking into
consideration of the facts pleaded by the plaintiff in the
plaint.
15. It is submitted that even after receipt of the legal

notice sent by the plaintiff, the defendant went to the
place of the plaintiff and warned about the illegal acts
and demanded to return the documents, as the
defendant was ready to pay the loan amount with
interest, for which the plaintiff has not agreed and
further stated that he will see the matter only in the
court of law. This defendant reserves his right to file
302
separate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff for

having created fake documents on the basis of the
documents obtained from the defendant. Under these
circumstances the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be
dismissed in the light of the above said facts and
circumstances of the case.
Wherefore, the defendant prays that this Hon’ble

Court be pleased to dismiss the above suit with costs, in
VERIFICATION
I, the defendant above named, do hereby declare
DEFENDANT
Bengaluru
Date:
IN THE COURT OF THE PRCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE,
BANALORE RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU
O.S.NO.468/2016
BETWEEN:
Ganga Byrappa PLAINTIFF

303
AND:
Nagesh DEFENDANT
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, Nagesh, son of Ninge Gowda, Aged about 40

years, residing at No.423, Near Chikkavenkatappa’s
House, Samanahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore-560 82. do hereby solemnly affirm and state
on oath as follows:
1. I submit that I am the Defendant in the above case

and I know the facts of the case and hence I am
competent to swear to this affidavit.
2. I submit that the statements made in para-1 to 15

of the accompanying Written Statement are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and
information.
I, the deponent herein do hereby verify and state

Identified by me,
Advocate,
Bengaluru
DEPONENT
Dated:
No.of corrs.
304

LND-RA(S) 04/2015-16
BETWEEN:
The Tahsildar,
305
AND:
Krishna Maniyan
Sri. Nithyananda &

RESPONDENTS 10 &
11
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

affidavit, the Applicants/Respondents No.10 & 11 in the
above case, most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble
court be pleased to split-up the records of this
Respondents and to proceed/order in the above case
separately, in the interest of justice and equity.
Bangalore
Date:26-9-2016 ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANTS/
RESPONDENTS 10 & 11

LND-RA(S) 04/2015-16
BETWEEN:
The Tahsildar,
306
AND:
Krishna Maniyan
Sri. Nithyananda &

RESPONDENTS 10 &
11
AFFIDAVIT
I, Nithyananda, Son of Late Y.L. Rama Reddy, aged

about 56 years, residing at No.60/5,1-1, 3rd Cross, North
Main Road, 6th Block, Jayanagar, Yadiyur, Bangalore-82,
do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:
1. I submit that I am the Respondent No.10 in the

above case and I know the facts of the case, hence I am
of Respondent No.11 who is none other than my brother.
2. I state that the petitioner has initiated the above

proceedings against ourselves and other Respondents
under Section 108 (K) of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act on false and frivolous grounds. I submit that the
original Grantee Bhaskarachari S/o Kondachari has
executed a Registered WILL in our favour and came to be
died on 26-6-2011. After his demise we became the
absolute joint owners as per the WILL. Thereafter we are
in lawful possession and enjoyment of the land in
question by personally cultivating the said land. The
notice was sent to the original grantee, on coming to
know about the said fact, we filed impleading application
307
and we brought on record as Respondents No.10 & 11.

Thereafter we filed our detailed objections and also
produced necessary documents to prove our case.
Thereafterwards we have also filed Written Arguments
and the matter was reserved for orders on 13-4-2016.
Thereafter we learnt that orders will be passed in one or
two months in the office. Accordingly we were waiting
and also we enquired often and often with the concerned
case workers, but till today no order is passed in the said
proceedings even after lapse of several months. Hence it
has caused great hardship to us and we are under the
fear that order may be passed against us and the
Government may resume the land in question in their
custody.
3. I further submit that, I came to know through the

case workers that there are lot of respondents in the
above proceedings and it is causing delay in passing the
orders in the above case and further suggested to consult
your advocate and to make necessary applications by
requesting the Hon’ble Authority either to pass orders or
to make alternate arrangement. Hence this application.
3. If the annexed application is not allowed myself and

Defendant No.11 will be put to great hardship and
injury. On the other hand if the application is allowed no
prejudice would be caused to the other side.
Wherefore I most respectfully prays that this

Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the accompanying
308
application as prayed for, in the interest of justice and

equity.

Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate
Bangalore
Date: 26-9-2016
309

ANEKAL
O.S.NO.1150/2015
BETWEEN:
Sri.R. Jayakumar PLAINTIFF
AND:
Rangappa and others DEFENDANTS
THE DEFENDANT NO.6 FILES THE FOLLOWING

OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PLAINTIFF, UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH
SECTION 151 OF C.P.C. AS UNDER:-
1. The application filed by the plaintiff is not

maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence the same is
liable to be dismissed in limine.
2. The defendant No.6 filed the detailed Written

statement to the plaint averments and the contentions
raised therein may kindly be read as part and parcel of
this objections to avoid repetition of facts.
3. The defendant submits that the plaintiff has no

locus standi to file the present suit, hence the question of
310
seeking the interim order does not arise at all. This

defendant is the purchaser of the suit property in the
year 2004-05, ever since then this defendant is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
The plaintiff is also a minor party to the said sale
transaction represented by his guardian the father of the
plaintiff. Hence the said sale deed is binding on the
plaintiff.
4. The averments made in para-2 of the affidavit

seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is
not maintainable since the joint family property has
already been severed between the plaintiff and the
defendants No. 1 to 5 as on the date of 1992 itself and as
such the plaintiff has sown to a false affidavit knowing
fully well and aware of the said facts.
5. The averments contained in para-3 of the affidavit

is denied as false. It is true that the suit was filed and the
same was ended in compromise relating to joint family
property and as such, ever since the date of compromise
the joint family came to be severed, the question of filing
the suit does not arise at all, as such the I.A. in question
is unsustainable in law. The further averments in the
said para is with regard to alienation of the suit property
and the conditions stated therein is denied as false. No
such condition was imposed in the said compromise and
moreover the plaintiff has no manner of right to seek
partition based on that condition. When there is an
allotment made in favour of Varadamma the second
311
defendant herein, she has become the absolute owner, as

such the plaintiff can not claim any manner of right over
the said suit. Hence the question of joint family does not
arise at all. The suit property is not in joint possession of
the plaintiff.
6. The averments made in para-4 of the affidavit is

with regard to sale and purchase of the suit property is
denied as false. The sale transaction is not a loan
transaction and it is a out and out sale transaction. The
plaintiff can not question the same. The further
averments with regard to good understandings between
the Govinda Setty and the defendants No.1 and 2 is
denied as false, it is the created story of the plaintiff to
make illegal gain and to file the present suit. On plain
reading of the said sale deed, it is clear that it is out and
out sale transactions, but not a loan transaction as
stated by the plaintiff and it is only a created story of the
plaintiff to claim the share in the property. The further
averments in the said para are hereby denied as false
and incorrect.

false, since the plaintiff is not having any manner of right
or share including other family members, the question of
seeking the permission from the Hon’ble court for the
alienation does not required, as such the plaintiff can not
take such contention to file the present suit, when he
does not have any manner of share or right over the said
312
property. The said sale transaction is binding on all the

family members of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5. The
further averments in the said para is with regard to sale
of the suit property or exclusive right over the said
property by the plaintiff is denied as false, for the reasons
stated above. Further it is not reserved for the children of
defendants No.1 and 2.

denied as false. When the plaintiff has no manner of right
or share in the suit schedule property, the question of
filing the suit after attaining the majority does not arise
at all. The further averments is only in order to file the
suit and the same are hereby denied as false.
9. The averments contained in para-7 of the affidavit is

denied as false. It is denied that the plaintiff smelt about
the alienation of the suit schedule property by the
defendant No.6 is denied as false. This defendant has got
any manner of right to question the sale with regard to
third parties by the defendant No.6, as he is the absolute
owner of the suit schedule property.
10. The averments made in para-8 of the plaint with

regard to prima facie and balance of convenience is
denied as false. The plaintiff has not made out any such
prima facie case or balance of convenience does not lies
in his favour for any purpose. If this application is not
allowed, the plaintiff will not suffer any irreparable loss
or hardship. On the other hand if the application is
313
allowed, this defendant being the purchaser for valuable

consideration will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court be

pleased to dismiss the application with costs, in the

No.6 No.6
VERIFICATION
I, the defendant No.6 above named, do hereby
declare that what is stated above is true and correct to
the best of my knowledge, belief and information.
Bangalore
Date: DEFENDANT
No.6
314

Memorandum of Plaint Under Section 26 Read With Order Vii Rule 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorandum of Plaint Under Section 26 Read With Order Vii Rule 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Memorandum of Plaint Under Section 26 Read With Order Vii Rule 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL

Defendants No.2 & 3 are

4. Sri. Vijaya Kumar,