SM’f. M. IAIJThA v. SRI. S. MUKESH Sf0 LATE M SURESH

SRI. M. RAMESI I 8/0 LXI’E LC. MI”\ISWAMY REDL)Y MAJOR. NO.!. (‘TINNINflIIAM ROAI) HIGH ornn ‘NDS. HANGALORE 32. SRI. M. MAIIESI! 5/0 (.ME L.C. \1tNISVAMY REIMbY MAJOR. NO. (2. KASI I RI3A R LU) (‘ROSS HANGAIA)RE 01. SMT. ‘INt”flfA D/O ISlE IS’. Mt NISWAMY REiflW MAJOR. W/() St 1)111k REI)1)Y NO.41. KASIVRL3A ROAD (‘ROSS BANGAI.ORE 01. SMt VYJAYAN’I’I II MAJOR. W/O DR.1JAYADEVAKI’MAR MOON IA REESIND AT NO.23. LOWER PALACE ORCHARD BAN’ ;ALORE 03. SMT. SIIAILA SIIYAMSITNDAR MOOflIA MAJ( )R. W/O DR. SI (YAM St NDER MO()TI IA R/AT NO.23. LOWER PALACE OR(’I (ARE) BANOALORE-03. VENKATARAMANAPPA AGE: 50 YKARS S/C).VENKATARAMANAPPA R/AT AGADJJR VILlAGE WilliE HELl) POST E3ANGAI.ORE Sot ‘NJ ‘I’ALI”4 66. SRI. M. KRTSIINA REDDY MAJOR. S/O.FOT KNOWN

4. SRI. K C PONNL’ SWAM\ MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. ROSE Kt Tn’ MAJOR. N IERS NAME NO’! K” )1.* 1 11 SRL MOFIAN MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNO’VN SRI, TIIIPI’ES\VAMY MAJOR. S /0, ( )T KNOW\ SRI. •J RAMI’ MAJOR. S/O.NOT KN()\VN SRi. V RAJIASWAMY MAJOR. S/ ) NOT KNOWN SRI. I) (‘ MISRA MAJOR. 5/0 .N()T KNoWN RIKMINJ STEEL INDUSIRIES SRI. S SI1AMSNDER MKLNDAR S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. N S PAL)MAVATF-Jj MAJOR. W/O.NOT KNO\V\ SMT. NAGAMMA MAJOR. \V/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. RAMESI! 13AB MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. K SHANKAR RAO MAJOR, S/O.NOE’ KNOWN SRI. NANJAPPA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. PUSHPAA REDDY MAJOR, W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. H RANGA REDDY MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. SHAM SNDAR MAJOR. S/0.NOT KNOWN MR. K’R1 ‘X’ILI.\ (ERIKA ABRAI JAM MAJ )R. S/ . N )i KNOWN 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ‘4 -12- 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

38. 39 40 41 42 43 SRI. R OOPALAIAH MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. o P BALAIAH MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. LAKSFIMANA MURThY MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. VIMALA BAI MAJOR. W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. B SI-IlVASHANKARAIAH MAJOR. S/O.NC)T KNOWN SRI. LAKSIIMAIAH MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMt GEE’fl-IAMMA MAJOR. W/O.NOT KNOWN SMt M SAROJA MAJOR, W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. ThOMAS MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. K VASU MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. S RAMAKRISHNA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. R SIJNDARARAJ MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. N RAMA MURThY MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. J LJPENI)RA KUMAR MAJOR, Sb N(YI’ KNOWN SRI. NIZRATh AZRU MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. RARAKAL Th()MSK MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN j r) I ) MR. (‘F1ERJy\\ (FIERL,J;\ AFRAJ{A\J MAJOR, 5/0. ‘J )T KNO\VN SRI. KRJSFJN\ppA MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. SADAL\1Ufl’pl IMt 1] I’ MAJOR, 5/0 XO’i’ KNOWN SRI. BALA5KK.R MAJOR, S/O,NOT KNOWN SRI. LAKSFjMJNAf\y1V PAIl] MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. A J JAYAR1U1 MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. G V AMALAj\ MAJOR. W/O,NOT KNOWN SRI. RAZVID KIIAN MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. PRAKASH NANIEL, MAJOR, S/O,N(yf KNOWN SMT. VJDHy1\ MAJOR, W/O,NO’p KNOWN SRT, GOVINDAJAH MAJOR, S/O,NOF KNOWN SM]’. MAJOR, W/O .NOT KNOWN SM]’. NAN[)INJ D MAJOR, ‘V/O,NOT KNOWN SRI. 1) K NAG\RAJ MAJOR, 8/0. NOT KNOWN SRI, TI SJAYA5Jj\1j- MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI, N SFIKKAR MAJOR, 5/ONol KNOWN 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 - 14- 60 SRI. I) sI;RESII MAJOR, S/O. NOT KNOWN 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 SRI LAKSI IMINARAYANA RED DY MA JOR. 5/0. NOT KNO\V\ SRI. I) K SARAL5\ MAJOR, W/O.NO1’ KNOWN SRI. K SATI-IYANAPAVANA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI KARIYAPPA MAJOR. S/O.NOi’ KNO\VN SRI .S ENDARA GOWDA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. S DEVARAJALU NAIDU MAJOR. 5/0. NOT KNWN SRI. NAGESI-I BOLAR MAJOR, S/O,NOT KNOWN SRI. M C NANJE GOWDA MAJOR .5/0. NOT KNOWN SRI. R LCKUNDE MAJOR. S/O,NOT KNOWN SMT. PADMAVATI-II MAd C) R. \V/ 0 N (XV KN 0\VN SRI. M G NARASIMI-JALU NAIDIJ MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN MRS. ANNE MVI’I I LW MAJOR. W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. AI3DUL SUBF-IAN KHAN MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. KRISHNA MAJOR. S/(),NOI KNOWN SRi. MUDALACIR1 (;OWDA MAJOF?. S/C).NOT KNOWN - 15- 76 77 78 79 80 8 1 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9() 9 1 SMT. ANNAMMA ABRAHAM MAJOR. W/O.\OT KNOWN SRi. SHANKAR [31 IAT MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN I-I K PREMA SMT. MAJOR. W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. KRISIINAPPA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. CHANDRAMMA MAJOR. W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. D S NAMANARAY\N MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. LAKSH MAN MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI SATYANARAYANA RAO MAJOR, S/O. NOT KN )WN SRI. PUTI’ASOMANNA MAJOR, 8/0. NOT KNOWN SRI. C NEELAKANTAPPA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. K H ANI3ARASAN MA JOR. W/ (). NO’i’ KNOWN SMT. BHAN[JMATHI MAJOR. W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. RAJA RAO MAJOR. S/O,NOT KNOWN SMT. MANCARASI IPI3I IASHINI MAJOR, \V/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. R ‘I’RISIIULDAS rvlAJ( )R. S/O.NO’I’ KNOWN SRI HASI lEER All MEl) MAJOR. S/( ). NOT KNOWN -a -16- 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 SMT. B P RAJALAKSHMI MAJOR. W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. B JAYARAM MAJOR. S/0.NOT KNOWN SRI. N SLJBRAMANYA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. PARVAThI MAHADEV MAJOR. W/O.NCYf KNOWN SRI. A N SHREERANGAPPA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMt M V SUDHA MAJOR W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. S R PRASHANTh MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. R S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN 100 MR. R S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 SRI. K P BHATNAGAR MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. RAJARAJAN MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. B R SHAMA PRASAI) MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. PARAWI}I BORAIAH MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. J KANTHARAJ MAJOR S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. VIJAYADEVA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. SARASHEKAR MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN 108 1 09 110 SRI. S K K G0\VDA MAJOR. S/0.NOT KNOWN SM’!’. S11AK ‘NTAL1\ MAJOR. W/0.NOT KNOWN NOS.9 TO 109 ARE ALL RESIDING AT WI IITE F’IEI.D BANGALORE SOLIl I ‘FALl. ‘K OP SY,1JOS,7 & t RESPECTJVEIX. SRi K ‘I’ll I PPESWAvIY MA JOR 5/0 SAN\A Rl.’DRAYA RESIDING AT N’ ).225 BYYAN NA LAYO( 11’ OP I LR ( !R( I P WI III F BANGAL()RE 66. I IPI D (SRI. MALL! KAR I. \ C’ I3ASAREI )DY F( )R SRI P B PPAJAI I SRI. M.S. NARAYANA FOR R5) I OR R 3 SRI 0 1 VISHWANA I H POR C /R4 RESPONDENTh 2003 BE’I’WEEN: SMT. VINUTFIA MAJUI’<. W/0 ‘SLLKAKAR iED1Yf NO.I I . KJ\S’l’i RHA ROAI) CR( )SS BANGAL()RE-0 1 (BY SRI. MS. NARAYAN. ADV( )CA’IE) AN D: I SRI. S. MUKESH 8/0 LATE M S ‘RESI! A(E1) 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.43/29 iRONIENAI;)E ROAI). II (‘R( )S8 I,\V0Ll’, IR()MF:NAI)E R(T\I), FF?ASER ‘I’O\VN. IIANGAIX)RE 5. ... APPELI.AN’I’ .1d -18- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SMT. S. JAYALAKSHMI MAJOR. W/O LATE M. SURESH RESII)ING AT NO.43/29 PROMENADE ROAD. II CROSS LAYOUT. PROMENAE)E ROAD. FRASER TOWN. I3ANGALORE-5. SMt MUNILANSI IMAMMA W/O LATE LC. MUNISWAMY REDDY RESiDING Al’ NO.42. KASItRBi ROAD CROSS. BANGALORE- I. SRi. M. RAMESH 5/0 lATE LC. MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED 71 YEARS. NO.1 CUNNINGHAM ROAD HIGH GROLJNI)S. BANGALORE-52. SRI. M. SURESH (DELETED) SRI. M. MAIJESH S/O LATE L.C. MUNISWAMY REI)DY AG El) 5t4 YEARS. NO.42 KASTUR13A ROAD CROSS BANGALORE-O 1. SfrTF. LALIThA W/O B.R. PAl AGED 68 YEARS R/AT NO.23/7. LEVELLE ROAD BANGALORE- I. SMt VYJAYANThI W/O DR JAYADEVAKUMAR R/AT NO.23. LOWER PALACE ORCHARD L3ANGALORE-03. SM’!’. SHA1LA SHYAMSI NDAR MOO’l}IA MAJOR, W/O DR. SHYAM SUNDER MOOThA R/AT NO.23. IA)WER PALACE ORCHARI) BANGAIA)RE-03. 10 VENKATARAMANAPPA AGE: 58 YEARS S/( ).vEIcIvvrARAMANApP R/AT AGADUJR VILLAGE 19 \VI—JFI’E El ELI) P )ST E3ANGALORE SOU’liI TAI1JK. 11 SRI. M. KRIShNA REDDY MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNO’vVN 12 1 3 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 25 SRI. K 0 PCNNL S\VAMY MAJOR. 5/0. NOT KNOWN SRI. ROSE KLJ’ITY MAJOR. FA’ITIERS NAME N(I’ KNOWN SRI. MOIIAN MAJOR, 5/0. NOT KNOWN SRi. TH1PPESWAMY MAJOR. S/O,NOT KNOWN SRI. 3 RAMU MAJOR. 5/0. NOT KNOWN SRI. V RAMASWAMY MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI.DCMISRA MAJOR. S/O.N(YI’ KNOWN RUKMINI STEEL INDUSTRIES SRI. S SHAMSUNDER MUKUNDAR S/O.NOT KNO\VN SMT. N S PADMAVA’FHI MAJOR. \V/O.NO’I’ KNOWN SMT. NAGAMMA MAJOR. W/0.NOT KNOWN SRI. RAMES Fl BABU M!VJOR .5/0. NOl’ KNOWN SRI. K SFIANKAR RA() MAJOR. S/O.NO’I’ KNO\VN SRI. N1\NJ1\PP.t\ MAJOR. 5/O,NOT KNOWN A 20 26 27 28 SM’. Pt’s! IP.\ A REDI)Y MsJOR. W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. R RANGA REDI)Y MAJOR. S/O.NO r KM)VX SRI. SI IAMSI’NDAR MAJOR. S’O.NO I’ KNOWN 29 MR. KURL’VII.L.A ( ERIICA AI3RAILM MAJOR. S/0.NOT KNOWN 30 SRI. R (OPMSIAI I MAJOR. S/O.NOT KN )WN 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 31) 40 41 SRI. o P 13A1.AIAII MAJOR, S/O.N(Y1’ KNOWS SRI. LAKSIIMANA MtRflIY MAJOR. s/0.Nor KNOWN SMt VIMALA HAl MAJOR. V/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. H SI UVAS1 IANKARAIA1 1 MAJOR. S/O.NOI’ KNOWN SRI. LAKSIIMAIAJI MAJOR. S/o.No’r KNOWN SMT. CIEETIIAMMA MAJOR. V/O.NOT KNOWN SMt M SAROJA MAJOR. W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. THOMAS MAJOR. S/O.NO’I KNOWN SRI. K ‘AS1’ MAJoR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. S RAMAKRISI INA MAJOR. S/O.N(Yf KNOWN SRI. R St NI )ARARAJ MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN U -21- 42 43 44 45 SRI. N RAMA MURThY MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. J UPENDRA KUMAR MAJOR. 5/0 NOT KNOWN SRI. NIZRATh AZRU MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. RARAKAL THOMSE MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN 46 MR. CHERIYAN CHERUJAN ABRAHAM MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 SRI. KRISHNAPPA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. SADALAAMURAUMUTHU MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. BALASEKAR MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA PATh MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI.AJJAYARAM MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMt C V KAMALAMMA MAJOR, W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. RAZVII) KHAN MAJOR. S/o.Nur KNOWN SRI. PRAKASH NANIEL, MAJOR. S/O.NO’ KNOWN SMt VIDHYA MAJOR. W/O.N(YF KNOWN SRI. GOVINDAIAH MAJOR, S/O.Ncrr KNOWN SMt SHANTHALAKSHMI MAJOR. V/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. NANI)INI 1) MAJOR. \V/O.NOT KN()\VN SRI. I) K NACARAJ MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. H S JAYAKASHYAP MAJOR. 5/0. NOT KNc\VN; SRI. N SHEKAR MAJOR. S/C). NOT KNOWN SRI. D SURESH ‘\r11\,JO[ S/O.\(Y1 KNOWN SRI. LAKSHH NARAYANA REDDY MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. D K SARALA MAJOR. W/O.NJOT KNOWN SRI. K SAY}IYANARAYANA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. KARIYAPPA MAJOR. S/0. NOT KNOWN SRI. SUNI)ARA (OWI)A MAJOR, S/C). NOT KNOWN 5f, S DEVARAJALL NAIDU MAJ OR. S/C). NC )T KNOWN SRI. BAGESH BOLAR MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. M C NANJE GOWDA MAJOR. S/C), NOT KNOWN SRI. R LOKLNI)E MAJ OR, S / C). NOT KN OWN SMT. PADMAVATI!! IVIAJOR, W/O NC)’!’ KNOW N SRI Yl C NA RAS! ME !AI.I NA! D[ MAJOR. S/0, NOT KNOWN 59 6() 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 69 7() 71 72 73 23 - 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 $8 89 MRS .AN NE M1VIi I [AV rvIAJCR. W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. ABDLL SLIIHAN RI IAN MA JOR, 5/0. N( )T KNOWN SRI. KRISHNA MAJOR. 5/ONOT KNOWN SRI. MUDALAGIRI (iOWDA MAJOR. s/aN( )T KNOWN SMT. ANNAM MA ABRAHAM MAJOR. \V/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. SHANKAR 13HAT MAJOR. S/O.NO1 KNOWN SMT. II K PREM1\ MAJOR. W/O.N()T KNOWN SRI. KRISHNAPPA MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. CI IANDRAMMA MAJOR, W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. D S RAMANARAYAN MAJOR. S/O.NO’l’ KNO\VN SRI. LAKSFIMAN MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. SA’IYANARAYANA RAO MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI, PU’IiASOMANNA MAJOR. S/O.NO’I’ KNOWN SRI. 0 NEELAKANTAPPA MAJOR. S/C.NOT KNOWN SMT. K H ANI3ARASAN MA J( N. W/O N(YI K\ )WN SMT. 131 lANE MATHI MAJOR. W/0N (Yl’ KNOWN 24 SRI. RAJA RAO MAJOR, S/O.NOT KNOWN SM’!’. MANGARASE!LBI lAS BIN! MAJOR. W/(D, NOT KNOWN SRI. R TRISHULDAS MAJOR. S/C). NOT KNOWN SRI. F3ASHEER AHMED MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT, B P RAJALAKSHMI MAJOR. \V/U.NOT KNOWN SRI. BJAYARAM MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. N SUBRAMANYA MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. PARVATI I! MA! IADEV MAJOR. W/O. NOT KNOWN SRI. A N SI-IREERANGAPPA MAJOR, S/O.NO’I’ KNOWN SM1’. M V SUDHA MAJOR. W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. S R PRASIIAN1’H MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. R S LAKSIIM1NARAYANA REDDY MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN 90 9 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 MR. R S LAKSHM!NARAYANA REDDY MA JOR. 5/0. NOT KNOWN 103 1(4 105 SRI. K P BHATNAGAR MA.J()R. S/ONlY!’ KNOWN SRI. RAJARAJAN MAJOR. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. B RSHAMAPRASAI) MAJOR. 5/ONOT KNOWN 1 06 107 1 08 1 00 I 10 111 SRI PARANTH E3ORAIAI 1 MAJOR. S/0.NOT KNOWN SRI. J KANTHARAJ MA J( )R. 8/0. N0’F K\(Z\VN SRI VkJAYADEVA MAJOR. 8/0. NOT KNOWN SRI. SARASI IEKAR MAJOR. S/O.NOT Kr\O\VN SRI. S K K (O\VDA MAJOR, S/O,NOT KNOWN SMT. SHAKUN’ISALA MAJOR. W/O,NOT KNOWN 1 0 ARE ALL NOS. 10 ‘10 1 RESIDING AT \V1-IITE FIEI.D BANG \I ORL 801, III I \1 I. K OF SY.NOS.7 & 8 RESPECTIVELY. 11 2 SRI. K TH I PPESWAMY S/O.SANNA RI.DRAYYA RESIDING AT NO.225 BYYANNA LAYOUT OUTER CIRCLE. \VII I’I’E H ELD BANGAL( )RE66. ... RESPONDEN’IS (SRI. MALLIKAR.JUN (S BASAREDDY. ADVOCATE FOR Ri & R2 SRI. PB. APPAIAH FOR R4, SRI. C I. VlSI IWANA’Ii I FOI< ( / RE SRI. SATYANANAYANA FOR R7 SRI. P.B. RAJU FOR R34 To H 112) IN RFA No.85/200J B ETW E E N: SRI. M. RAMESII 5/0 LATE L.C. MUNISWAMY REDDY AGED 7 1 YEARS. NO. 1 R/AT NC). I HIGH GROUNDS. BANGALORE 52. . CUNNINGIIAM ROAIS) (BY SRI, P. B. APPA1AH. ADVOCATE) .. APPELLANT AND: I 2 -26- SRI. S. MUKES1I 5/0 LATE M SIJRESII AGED 36 YEARS SMT. S. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LA1’E M. SURESH AGED 65 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.43/29 PROMENADE ROAD. II CROSS LAYOUT. PROMENADE ROAD. FRASER TOWN. BANGAL.ORE-5. SMt MIJNILAKSHMAMMA (DECEASED) W/() LATE LC. MUNISWAMY REDDY ADULt RESIDING Al’ NO.42. KASTLJRBA ROAD CROSS. BANGALORE- I. SRI. M. SURESH (I)EISI’EDJ ISlE L.C. MUNISWAMY REDDY SRI.M.MAHESII Sb AGED 58 YEARS. NO.42 KAS’IIJRI3A ROAD CROSS BANGALORE-Ol. SMT. LALIThA W/O B.R PA! ADULt R/AT NO.23/7. LEVELLE ROAD. BANGALORE- I. 5frff VINUThA. ADULt W/O SUDHAKAR REDDY R/AT NO.41 KAS’flJRBA ROAI) (‘ROSS BANGALORE 560 (X) 1. SM’I’. VYJAYANTI II W/O DR JAYADEVAKUMAR ADuI:r R/AT NO.23. LOWER PALACE ORCI tARE) BANGAWRE-03. 9 SM’l’. SHAILA SHYAMSUNDAR MOOIHA ADULT. 3 4 5 6 7 8 -27- W/O DR SHYAM SUNDER M(XYfl-IA RIM’ NO.23. LOWER I’ALACF: ORUI IARI) BANGAL..ORE-03. 10 VENKAI’ARAMANAPPA AGE: 58 YEARS S/O.VENKATARAMANAPPA R/AT AGADUR VILLAGE ‘HlTE FIELI) N BANGALORE SOUTh TALLJK. SRI. M. KRISHNA REDDY AI)ULT. S/O.NOT KNOWN 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 SRI. K G PONNU SWAMY ADULT. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. ROSE KUTI’Y ADULT. FAThER’S NAME NOT KNOWN SRI. MOHAN ADULT. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. ThIPPESWAMY MAJOR. S/O.NcYr KNOWN SRI. 1J RAMIJ ADUI:r. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. V RAMASWAMY ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI.DCMISRA ADUI:l’. S/O.N(Yl’ KNOWN RUKMINI STEEL INDUSTRIES SRI. S SHAMSUNDER MLJKUNDAR ADUI:r. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. N S PADMAVATIII ADULT. W/O.NOT KNOWN SMt NAGAMMA ADUI:r W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. RAMESI 1 I3AE3U ADULt S/O.NCXI’ KNOWN I -28- 24 25 26 27 28 SRI. K SHANKAR RAO ADULT. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. NANJAPPA ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SM’I. PLJSIIPA A REI)DY ADULt W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. R RANGA REDDY ADuI:r. s/o.Ncrr KNOWN SRI. SHAMSUNDAR ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN 29 MR. KLJRtIVILLA CERIKA ABRAHAM ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN 30 SRI. R GOPALAIAH ADULT. S/O.NOT KNOWN 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 SRI. 0 p BALAIAH ADULt S/O.NUr KNOWN SRI. LAKSHMANA MURThY ADuI:r. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMt VIMALA 13A1 ADUIS. W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. B SHIVASHANKARAIAII ADLJIX. S/O.N(Yr KNOWN SRI. LAKSHMAIAH ADL)IX. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMt GEflrIAMMA ADUUf. W/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. M SAROJA ADULt w/o.xcyr KNOWN SRI.ThOMAS ADUI:r. S/O.NCYr KNOWN SRI. K VASU ADUI:r. S/O.NtYI’ KNOVN 4 -29- 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 SRI. S RAMAKRISHNA ADULt S/O.NO’ KNOWN SRI. R SUNDARARAJ ADULt S/O.MYF KNOWN SRI.NRAMAMURTIIY ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. J L:PENDRA KL:MAR ADULt S/U NUT KNOWN SRi. NIZRATh AZRU ADULT. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. RARAKAL TI-IOMSE ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN MR. CHERTYAN CHERUJAN ABRAHAM ADULT. s/o.N(Yr KNOWN SRI. KRISHNAPPA ADLJUr. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. SADALAAML;RALIMU11 IC ADULt S/O.N(Y1’ KNOWN SRI. BALASEKAR ADUUr. s/o.No’r KNOWN SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA PATfl ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. AJ.JAYARAM ADUUf, S/O.NOT KNOWN SMt G V KAMALAMMA ADULT. w,osio’r KNOWN SRI. RAZVID K) IAN ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. PRAKASH NANIEI. ADL!IS. S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. VIDHYA ADI ‘I.t W/O.NOT KNOWN 4 30 56 57 58 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 SRI. AOL ‘Ut S/O.%() f SM?. ADULT. W/O.ycyg KYo SMt%AND,r0 ADLt’j’ W/o.’%’c)T KXOW1 SRi. Djç NAojpj ADiqi’ SRI. If SfJAYA1cyw AOL ‘Ut /0.xcyi’ KNowx SRI. N SHEIcu AOL iT, S/o.y- KYowyc SRI. D SURIjI1 ADLjij, S/0Jy(yj’ K\0wyc SRi. LAKSHu1yy&bA REDoy ADULt S/u. Ncyr KNOW?J AOtyj;j’ W/0.(y KNOWN IC SRI, ADUL-! 5/.*yr KNo%R SRI. KARJYAPPA ADutt S/O.Naj’ KNOWN SRI. SLJNI)pp ADfl:j’ s/o,y Kflowiç (OWDA SRI. SDEVAPJkJAL(, NAIDt’ ADn,r, S/aNn-I’ I(No SRI. BAGESIJ Bofjg AD(JI,z S/o.xoi’ JQbjvg SRI. M C NANJE 0OWDA MM’ur. S/O.’g(yf ICMflfl SRi. R 1.01cr VDE AOL ‘L’f, 5/QJVc 1Cvow’ 4 -3’- 72 73 SMT. PADMAVAThI ADULt W/O NEXt’ KNOWN SRI. MG NARASIMHALU NAIDLJ ADULT, S/O.NOT KNOWN 74 MRS. ANNE MA’fl-IEW ADULt W/O.NOT KNOWN 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 SRI. ABDUL, SUL3HAN KHAN ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. KRISHNA ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. MUDAL.AOIRI GOWDA ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. ANNAMMA ABRAHAM ADULt W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. SHANKAR BHAT ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. H K PREMA ADULt W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. KRISHNAPPA ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. CHANDRAMMA ADULt W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. D S RAMANARAYAN ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. LAKSHMAN ADULt S/O.No’r KNOWN SRI. SA1YANARAYANA RAE) ADULT. S/O.NO’I’ KNOVN SRI. PUTI’ASOMANNA ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. 0 NEELAKAX1’API’A AI)UI:r. S/O.NOT KNOWN 4 -32- 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 SMT. K Ii ANBARASAN ADJJL,t W/O.NOT KNOWN SMt BHANUMAThI ADULt W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. RMA RA() ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SMt MANGARASHL!BIIASHINI ADULt W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. R TRISHULDAS ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. BASHEER AHMED ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. B P RAJALAKSHMI ADULt W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. B JAYARAM ADULT, S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. N SUBRAMANYA ADU1Z S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. PARVAThI MAHADEV ADULt W/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. A N SHREERANGAPPA ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SMT. M V SUDHA ADULt W/O.NOT KNOWN 100 SRI. S R PRASHAWI’H ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN 101 SRI. R S LAKSHM1NARAYANA REDDY ADUIZ S/O.NOT KNOWN 102 MR. R S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN 103 SRI. K P BHAAGAR ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN ‘4 -33- 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 SRI. RAJARAJAN ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. B R SHAMAPRASAD ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. PARANTh BORAIAH ADULT. S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI.JKANThARM ADUUI’. S/O.NOT KN0VN SRI. VIJAYADEVA ADUI1 S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI. SARASHEKAR ADUfl’ S/O.NOT KNOWN SRI.SKKGOWDA ADULt S/O.NOT KNOWN SMI SHAKUNTALA ADULT. W/O.NOT KNOWN NOS.IOTO 111 AREALL RESIDING AT WHITE FIELD BANGALORE SOUTh TALUK OF SY.NOS.7 & 8 RESPECTIVELY. 112 SRI. K ThIPPESWAMY S/O.SANNA RUDRAYYA ADULt RESIDING AT NO.225 BYYANNA LAYOUT OUTER CIRCLE. WHITE FIELD BANGALORE-66. ... RESPONDENTh (SRI. MALLIKARJUN C BASAREI)DY. ADVOCATE FOR RI & R2 SRI. G L VISHWANATh FOR C/R5 SRIa M.S. NARAYAN FOR R7 SRI. P.B. RAJU FOR R32 TORI 10) S... THESE REGULAR FIRST APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 96(11 OF CI’C AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 7.9.2002 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2905/1983 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIl. fl I)GE. TilE SC IT LOR PARTITION I3ANGAL0RE, PARTLY I)E(’REEI\G SEPARATE POSSESSION. BEI’\VEE I 2 SRI. F3. SIIIVASI IANKARAIAI I \IA J( )k R/O SY. No. 7 ANI) 8 WI IITELI ELI). BANGALORE 501 TI I ‘L1A k. SRI. K. TIIIPPES\VAMY MAJOR 8/0 SANNA RVI)RAYYA R/() NO 225. BYVANNA L\VOVF, OLTER CIRCLE WI IITEF’IEL[). BAN(11\L()RE 66. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. P B RAJI ANT) ASSOCIAIES, ADVOCATES) AND: I 2 3 1 SRI. S. WtKESII AGED ABOIT 37 YEARS 8/0 LATE M SIRESII SMT. JAYALAKSIIMI AGEI) AE3OUT (56 YEARS W/O LATE M SURESH Sr 2 ARE RESPONDENTS I R/() NO. 43/20, PR()V1E\1\D1 R( )A1) 2NL) CRoSS LAY( fl T. PHAlLI’ R)WN I3ANGALORE 5. SM’!’.MITN1LAKSIIMAMMA MAi( )R \V/O LATE LC. MI’\IS\AMV REDIT DECEASE) E3\ LRS., RESPONE)EN’I \( )S, 1 10 t’ SRI. M RAMESII ACIEI) ABOI I’ 71 YEARS 35 5 6 7 S/C) LA’lE LC. ML NISWAM\ REI)I)Y Rio NC) 1. CUNNINGhAM RUM). HIC ;H C;R.OL NI )S. LIAN( AL( )RE. SRI.MMATIESII AGED A13( )I 778 YEARS S/U ISLE Lf. ML’NISWAM REDI)Y RIO NC) 42. KASIL R81\ RAOD. BANCALORE 1. SMT. LALfl’I IA AGED AllOt ‘T 88 YEARS V/O B.R. PAL RIO NC) 23/7 IAVEILE ROAI) BANGALORE 1. SMT. VINflIA W/() S1’DHAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS R/O NO 41. KASTURBA ROAD CROSS BANGALORE 1. (SRI. G LVISTIWANATII FOR (“/R5 SRI. MAU.IKARJL’N IiASAREL)L)Y FOR RI &2 SRI. P. B. API’AIAI I F( )R R4 SRI. SATIIYANARAYANA FOR R6 SRI. M.N. NARAYAN FOR R7) RESPONDENTS *8*t TILlS RFA IS FILED L NI )ER SEC 1’ION 903 OF (‘PC AGAINST ‘TIlE ORDER PASSED ON AL)LNTJONAL ISSUES DATED 18.3.02 AND 27.5.02 iDE .JUDGMEN1’ AND t)Lt’X’REE DATED 7.9.02 PASSED IN O.S.NO.2905/83 ON TILE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDIONAL CiTY CIVIL JUDGE. LIANGALORE. ANSWERING THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES DATED 18.3.02 AND 27.5.02 PARItY IN AFFIRMATIVE. THESE APPEALS COMING or, FUR FINAl. HEARING ThIS DAY. N.KUMAR .J.. L)ELIVERED TILE F( )LL()VING: I L JUDGMENT RPA No 352/2003 is filed by the plaintiffs eha11eIninL that portion ot judgment decree of the Trial Court where they have been denied relief in respect of item Nos. 3, 6 i o 9 of the suit schedule properties. RR\ No.24/2003 is filed by defendant No.5. RV\ No.8/2003 is bled by defendant no.2 and RP\ No, 736/2003 is filed by defendant No.b challenging the jucgnlenl decree of t he Trial Court :0 n Ii ii relief 1 0 1 lie plaint iffs. REA No 1 92 / 2003 is filed by defendant Nos.33 and 1 1 1 challenging the finding recorded by the Trial Court on additional issues 1 and 6 to Ihe effect they are not bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration. Therefore, when all appeals arise out of the same judmen1 and decree. t h ese a p pei Is are take ii ii p for cons eration together disposed common jii d g n e i t a - I D D C D C 1C D D C 1 D C 0 c — - ) ! C r S P : - — D C — f 1 D C D C a H p D C — D C r C D C r C — DC C D — J P ( a D — C D C D D I D C D C — a a I I D D C 0 ( D C a a D C D C D C D C D C D C — Z D C a C - a - D -C D 2 a a - C D C 2 a DB C Z c i c f : D C Z o D C 2 . - D I ( D C — — a — — — B Z 1 Q a - 2C C — r — — — D C D C i ( H 2 — — D C - a i i c H a D C D C — C a r D C — t - — - D C D C 0 Z D C - a - — D C - D C D C D C D C D C t — - a - - a — — a a - . — - a - - a - a . -— 0 - D C 0 . - : — C — w I D C D C j C : 2 P D C z C ‘ - 2 C t — L — - a - D C a C D C ) 1 C D C D C a D C c i : -38- of Late L.C.Muniswamy Reddy. Plaintiff No.1 was a minor and now he has attained majority and prosecuting the suit on his own. Item Nos.1. 2 and 3 of the stilt schedule properties are ancestral properties. Item Nos.4 and 5 of the suit schedule items belong to plaintiffs and deceased defendant No.3 only. Plaintiff No. 1 and his mother plaintiff No.2 are •denied the love, care and protection of Late Suresh. defendant No.3 as he was given to vices of drinking and debauchery and was living separately from the plaintiffs and was beyond any hope of correction. Defendant No.3 is entitled to 7/24” share in the joint family properties. item Nos. 1(a). 1(b). 2 and 3 of the schedule properties. The plaintiffs are entitled to each 7/48” share in item Nos.l(a). 1(b). 2 and 3 of the schedule properties. The plaintiiTs are entitled to full share in item Nos.4 and 5. share to Item Nos.6. 7. 8 and 9. Due to the way ward and profligate life led by defendant No.3 and the ever present danger of defendant No.3 ‘7- c D C — I — — D C a _ 2 — a D C D C D C — D C - D C D C — — 0 a — D C — — — — — D C — — o . — - D C . — * D — 0 — . — — D 2 — 0 — — — — - — - - — — 9 — - D C S — ) a Z ‘ — — D C D C a D C Z D C — o — — 0 a — — - I _ _ _ _ 0 i - 3 — — 0 — — - D C — — — — D C D C 2 — — D C — - — — - — — — — — — — — — — D C — — - — 0 — _ — D C — - D a - — a D C 0 — D C D C — a D C - - - D C D C D C — — - — D C o — — 0 Z - D C — . — D C 1 a - D C a — r D C — - . ’ Z - — C D C a D C D - — — — — z D C - — f D C D C Is 10 or are about to alienai e it tiii \ properties to cleleticlait t a i. • ‘ impleaded in this stilt (or pi titt. respondent No.3 or other ki n.l i’s: any alienation of it lB P1 — 1 In It 1: tilt’ .1 aft’ properties, plaint ills shari itid n cit a 11(11 be affected thereby. a they tlt’ ii. : t•. ! (‘Ii them in any ease If tin dt! tanl’ any of the stilt %rhedltli. ‘a r i’—. entitled to eompen%a ‘i i ij -‘0 allotment of slut re% of eq uzi • .x ill property which are %tiIl relal’.i . 1’. •

5. The plaint was prt’sc ‘let! ‘‘ ‘ minor son reprnezitt’cl in I ‘ ‘ii i death of defendant No.3. hi’ plaintiff NC). I was hrnugti • . . representat We I lie ii . t C Thereafter site was t r;tiip r. I plaiitiff No 2. I.! “a alit. Ii’. . a . lit -4 -41-

6. Subsequently. defendants 9 111 impleaded as defendants. Originally there were only 5 Items In the plaint schedule I.e. Items 1

5. OrIginally, the defendants arc only from 1 to 6. Subsequently. by way of an amendment Items 6 to 9 were included, though no corresponding pleas were raised in the plaint. However defendant No.7 to 111. the purchasers of various portions of the schedule properly impleaded defendants.

7. After service of summons. the defendants 1. 5 and 6 filed joint written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs. Their case is as under: The statement in paragraph No.3 of the plaint. the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6 are members of Hindu Joint Family owning ancestral property and items 4 and 5 belonged to plaintiffs and defendant No.3 only. is not adniitied. it Is submitted thai the family of Late L.C.Muniswamy Reddy was disrupted during his life lime and all the properties were ‘V -42- divided among the members of the joint family long back. Items 1 to 3 are not joint family properties. Item No.3 i.e. éurvey No.160/I of Vlbhuthipura Village was purchased by defendant No. 1. out of her own funds under the registered sale deed dated

17.01.1962 and the sante “as disposed of back. This item is a self-acquisition of defendant No. I and the plaintiffs have no right whatsoever the said land. Items 1(a) and 1(b) of the plaint schedule have been divided among members of the family. When there was a division in the family and these defendants have been enjoying their share as of their own right and the plaintiffs nor any other person has any manner of right, title and interest over the same. The defendants have disposed of the sante long back. The averments in paragraph 4 that the plaintili No. 1 and his mother are denied love, and protection of defendant No.3 as he is given to vices of drinking and debauchery and was living separately and he is beyond any hope of corrections are not true. They are the crcatlon of (he guardian and mother of the U- t -s -43- plaintiff only to harass defendant No.3. She had filed a false and frivolous petition under dismissed same was provisions of Indian Lunacy Act in Misc. Case No.83/1977 on the file of the District Judge at Bangalore 28.08.1978. The mother of the plaintiff and the wife of defendant No.3 was not co-operative with husband and her thrust has always been only to command her husband and take the management of the family. With that intention only, the present suit has been filed, only to harass and threaten her husband to submit to her illegal and high handed quest. The averment that defendant No.3 is entitled to 7/24” share in the Joint family properties items 1(a). 1(b), 2 and 3 is denied and therefore incorrect and fallacious and Imagination. These properties are already partitioned long hack. self-acquisition of defendant No. I. property Item No.2 is the Item No.3 is the 28.09.1963. which was dealing in estate business. Red Rose purchased by M/s. 2 -44- These defendants were partners In the said firm. The firm was dissolved and out of the total extent in the said item, these defendants got their shares as follows: Defendant No.1 - 50400 sq.ft. Defendant No.2 — 48460 sq.ft. Defendant No.3 - 40560 sq. ft. It is submitted that the plaintiiTs are not entitled to any portion in the above extent. The balance extent has been fallen to other partners also. The firm was dissolved on 17.05.1980. Hence. the plaintiffs are not entitled to 7/48th share in items 1(a). 1(b). 2 and 3 of the schedule items. It is contended that the next friend of plaintiff No.1 is mentally unsound and therefore, interest of (he minor plaintiff No.1 is not safe in her hands. To the knowledge of these defendants. defendant No.3 has not raised any loans nor borrowed any money. Even there is encumbrance on the part of defendant No.3, -45- plaintiffs are morally and legally liable to own them. As such encumbrances If any are onl’ for the family necessity and to the benefit of plaintiffs. He has purchased items 4 and 5 of the plaint schedule items and improved them. In fact the piaini schedule Item No.5 was purchased in the joint names of plaintiffs and his father. out of defendant No.3’s own earnings. It is admitted that the defendants have alienated their properties. is well within their limits and right to enjoy their properties in whatsoever manner they like and the plaintiff cannot question their right of enjoyment. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the defendants properties and as such they are not entitled to compensatory adjustment by allotment of share or shares of equal value from other properties retained by them does not arise. There is no cause of act ion for the suit and therefore they sought for dismissal. Memo is filed on 01.08.1984 by defendant No.4 adopting the written statement i_v filed by defendants I . 5 and 6. -46-

8. Defendant No.2 his written statement on 23.07.2002. itearly 20 years after filing of the suit. The Trial Court has rightly refused to receive It on record. Therefore, though the written statement is In the file. it Is not on record and therefore it Is not referred to.

9. Defendant No.3 has filed a written statement. His defence is as under: The statements plaintiffs defendants 1 to 6 are the members of Hindu Joint Family owning ancestral properties items 1 to 3 of suit schedule items it not admitted. The family of late L.C.Muniswamy Reddy was disrupted during his life time and the properties items 1 to 3 are not family properties. Item No.3 i.e. survey No.160/i of Vibhuthipura Village was purchased by defendant NC). 1 Smt.Munilakshmamma out of her own funds and the same were disposed of long back to various persons and the above item is not liable for partition as any of the members of the 4 -47.. family of tale L.C.Munlswamy Reddy entitled for any share in the said property. Item No.1(a) and 1(b) were properties belonging L.C.Munisvamv Reddv and the said itenis were partitioned among the members of the family during the life time of L.C.Muniswamy Reddy and the parties had been enjoying the sante as of their own right and this property Is also not liable for partition. Item No.2 of the plaint i.e. survey Nos.7 and 8 of Whitefield Village has never been the property belonging to the joint family of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 6. This property was purchased by a registered partnership firm Red RoseS which was constituted in 1962 for buying and selling real estate, which firm purchased the said property under a registered sale deed in the year 1963. The said firm was dissolved iii the year 1980. The property was purchased from the money contributed by its partners equally. This property divided among the pain tiers when the firm was 4 -48- dissolved. The plaintiff has suppressed the truth of the above facts. Regarding the averments on Items 4 and 5 of the stilt schedule properties, this defendant submitted that item No.4 is a godown building No.48/3. Indusirlal Sub-Urban Is a self acquired property of this defendant. The plaintiff or any other person has no right over the property. This defendant Is an Engineering graduate and he was working in West Germany during 1960-62 and on return from abroad he was working as an employee in Goman India Ltd.. on a substantial salary. Out of savings purchased this defendant from the above assignments. Item No.4 and also out of the share amount, had with M/s. Agro Industrial Development Consortium Pvt. Ltd.. this defendant constructed the building. As regard Item No.5 of the plaint i.e. 43/29. Ii Cross Layout. Frazer Town. Bangalore. is also self acquired property of the defendant. Out of the love and affection towards the property was purchased In the Joint names of this defendant and son i.e. plaIntiff No.1. item No.4 4 -49- plaintiff No. I and the building was constructed out of this defendants own investments and efforts. The plaintiff is not entitled to any share in any of the above items. The averments that the plaintiff No.1 is the son of this defendant and defendant No.] is the widow and the defendant No.2 to 6 are the children of late L.C.Muniswamy Reddy are admitted. Plaintiff No.1 is a minor and he attained the age majority on 30.01.1984. The suit filed by the plaintiff No. ls next friend who is a mentally distorted person is not maintainable as the next friend is in capable of protecting the interest of the minor person and property. In the circumstances, submitted that the next friend may be discharged and any prawtielng advocate of Hon’ble Court may be appointed as an ad-litem guardian. The averments that the plaintiff and his mother and next friend are denied the love, care and protection of this defendant as he is given to vices of drinking and debauchery and is living 4 50 separately from the plaintiffs and beyond hope of any correction are hereby denied as false and baseless statements. is submitted that such an uncalled for, baseless and wild allegation had been made by the wife of this defendant in an earlier occasion in another proceedings initiated by her in Misc. No.83/1977 on the file of the District Judge. Bangalore contest, pe’tition’ is dismissed. The allegations repetition of earlier proceedings. It is submitted that due to some domestic problems and due to the mental disorderness and imbalance of mind of the wife of this defendant, this defendant and his wife are not going smoothly and not seen eye to eye. And it is at the instance of the wife of defendant, this false and frivolous stilt has been filed to lower the dignity and prestige of defendant in the society. The allegation that this defendant is entitled to 7/24111 share in the joint i’amily properties item 1(a). 1(b). 2 and 3 of t he suit schedule properties V 4 -51- are not admitted. Further the averments that the plaintiffs are entitled to 7/48” share in the above properties, likewise is entitled to half share in items 4 and 5 of the suit schedule items are also hereby denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of same. All other allegations paragraphs 6 to 9 of the plaint were specifically denied. The joint family was disrupted during the life time L.C.Muniswamy Reddy and the properties were partitioned among the members of the family possession respective shares independently and with a right to deal with their respective shares according to their wishes and neither the plaintiffs nor any persons have any right to question the same and the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share nor the compensatory adjustment. The suit items are all self-acquisition of the respcctive defendants and the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in them. Therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit. 4 52

10. After the death of defendant No.3. the widow was brought on record 4% legal representative of deceased defendant No.3 as defendant No.3(a). who has filed a written %tatement contravening the written statement iiled by her husband and supporting the claim of the plaintiff No. 1 and it is thereafter. she was added as plaintiff No.2 and she is prosecuting the matter. 1 1. After amendment of the plaint including items 6 to 9. additIonal written statements have been filed by the parties. in the additional written statement it is contended that item No.6 of the suit schedule properties hearing No.41

42. Kasturba Road Cross. Bangalore. ha not been properly described in the schedule with respect to its measurements and boundaries, absolute and self acquired property of defendant No. 1. She purchased the said property for valuable consideration tinder a registered sale deed dated

25.01.1960. lhe Kltata property stood in her name. Slit was paving the ta’c. k.. a -53- Smt. Munilakshniamma gifted property No.4 1 to this defendant under a registered gift deed dated

28.02.1975. The gift was accepted by the donee and acted upon inasmuch as the khata of the property No.41 stood transferred in the name of defendant No.4 and he was paying tax to the Corporation. The factum of gift has been referred in the objection statement filed by defendants 1 and 2 in Misc. 83/1977 as far back as on

29.08.1977. In respect of the property bearing No.42, defendant NC). I executed a registered Will on

20.04.1994 bequeathing property absolutely to defendant No.4. Subsequently with a change in the Karnataka Stamp Act, defendant No.1 executed the registered gift deed dated

20.08.1999 in his favour. The donee accepted the said gift and it was acted upon in as much as the Khata has been made out in his name and he is paying I he taxes to the Curporat ion. Thus this defendant is the absolute owner in possession and -54- enjoyment of the item No.6 of the suit schedule properties. It was never a joint family property. Neither the plaintiffs nor any of the defendants have any manner of right, title or interest over the same. In respect of item No.1. it was stated that the property bearing No.162/2 measuring I acre 12 guntas of Vibhuthipura Village was purchased by L.C.Muniswamy Reddy tinder a registered sale deed dated 26.10.1966. Similarly., the land in survey Family Agreement No.162/I was also purchased by him. He died intestate on 14.07.1971. After his death. by a Memorandum 20.06.1983, partition came into existence between his wife and children including defendant No.3. father of the plaintiff No.1. Item No.1 was divided among the parties with a definite share falling to each of the parties. As the said property is already partitioned. it cannot be a subject matter of the family. The portion of item No.1 which fell to the -55- share of defendant No.3 — Suresh is possession of the plaintiffs. In respect item No.2. it was contended that L.C.Muniswamy Reddy. N.V.Ramakrishna Reddy and others had constituted themselves into a partnership firm tinder REDROS’. The said firm was established on

09.02.1962 to deal with business of purchase and sale of properties. lands, sites and buildings. The firm converted agricultural land in survey Nos.7 and 8 of Whitefield. Bangalore under the registered sale deed dated 28.09.1963. This is item No.2 of the schedule. The firm obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner. Bangalore District sometime in 1967 and formed layouts of sites in the said lands. N.V.Ramakrishna Reddy retired from firm on 19.06.1971 and the firm was reconstituted with the induction L.C.Muniswamy Reddy. L.C.Muniswamy Reddy died daughters

14.07.1971 thereafter 0 -56- M.unilakshmanima was admitted to the partnership on 23.07.1971. The firm REDROS was dissolved and memorandum dated 17.05.1980 was drawn up under which each of the parties (including Suresh - Defendant No.3) got portion of item No.2 by way of sites. The parties have sold the sites allotted to them to various persons and (here is no property presently available for partition. Hence. Item No.2 is not incapable of being divided since it is no in existence in the form and manner longer described in the plaint. Item No.3 a property purchased nominally Munilakshmamma under a rcgistered sale deed dated 06.07.1962 along with defendant No.3 - Suresh whose name was included. Subsequently. Munilakshmamma purchased the share of Suresh from him under registered sale deed dated 28. 1 1. 1968. Thereafter. defendant No.] sold the said item No.3 in favour of VyJayanthi and Shyla Shamsundar Mootha (present defendants 7 registered sale deed dated 8) a 57

28.05.1981. Hence the said item No.3 property heinU t he sd iaeciti i i-ed properv Muni1akshmaiuna and the same havint. beei-i sold prior to the suit. is not a joint {amilv property, Ihe plaint ills do tiot have any rihi or interest over the same. In so tar as item No. (a) concerned, said properly lell to the share ci defendant No.1 under the Meinoranciunt ci F’aniilv Agreement dated

20.06. 1983. Defendant No. 1 executed agreement ci sale in lavour ci tier daughter Lalitha

16.06. 1989 with respect item 1(a) received tlie entire consideration irom her and put her in possession ci the said lands. This item was subsequently purchased by defendant No.2 Irom his sister. Hence. this property also is not a joint lamilv property and the plaitititis do not have claim to this item No.1 (a). In SO item No.5 IS coftdeined L.C. Mllniswamv Reddv had tormec] a pri’a1e limited company called ‘Agro md tist na! Development -58- Corporation Private Limited’. The said company had entered Into an agreement dated 05.04.1971 b with the Army Authorities (Madras Engineering Group) to purchase the property at No.43/29. Promenade Road. Frazer Town. Bangalore. Sale deed was executed in the joint names of plaintiff No. I and his father Suresh. who were nominated as purchasers on behalf the company. The sale deed is dated 01.07.1972. ThIs defendant has no objection for division of the said property. In respect of item No.4. the father of plaintiff No. 1 Suresh was in possession of the said property under an agreement dated 18.11.1963 executed by Bangalore Development Authority in his favour. On the completion of the lease period and on satisfying the cpndltions prescribed, the BDA executed an absolute sale deed dated 11.05.1983 in the name of Suresh. defendant No.3. If plaintiff want to treat the property as joint family property. defendants are also entitled to share In the said property. In respect of survey No. 159/6. .4 -59- It Is contended that there is no property bearing No.159/8 as described In ileni No.8. The property bearing No.159/6 of Vlbhutipura Village measuring 2 acres 3 giintas was gifted by MLlnilakshmamma to her daughter defendant No.6 on 19.07.1983. It was her self-acquired property having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated

01.05.1967. It is not a joint family property. Similarly. Item No.7 Is self-acquired property of defendant No. 1. She has sold the said property under a registered sale deed dated 14.02.1985 to one Vittal Shetty. The said purchaser has not been made a party to this proceeding. He is a proper and necessary party to this proceeding. Therefore. it was contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief sought for.

12. Defendants 5 and 6 filcd memo after amendment. denying plaint allegations. Defendant No.9 a written statement contending that defendants

1. 4 and 5 have 4 -60- executed a sale dcccl in his favour in respect of Mangalore Tiled house constructed in site No.26 measuring East to West 27 feet and North to South 40 feet. There is no collusion in obtaining the said sale deed. It is executed for valuable consideration. This defendant become absolute owner and It. was not the Joint family property. The plaintiffs have not right over the same. After purchase of the said site, he has demolished the existing Mangalore Tile house and a pakka house building after obtaining licence and apl)rOved plan from the Whitefleld Panchayath and also obtained permission from the BDA for construction of the building in site No.26. He borrowed a loan from [lI)FC for construction of house built on site No.26. The loan availed from HDFC Is still pending. lie has exercised his ownership in respect of the said site and has become absolute owner of said site and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The said property is not available for partition on the date of -61 the suit and therelore in so lair as his property is concerned, he pleaded for the dismissal of the suit.

13. SimIlarly. defendants 14. :37. 38. 41. 67. 68 and 86 ha c a joint written statement contending that all ol them have purchased sites in item No.2 of the plaint schedule. The site is purchased for alual)le consideration. Therefore. they want the stilt to be dismissed in so far as the property which they have purchased. Similar is the written statement defendant No.33. Defendant No.49 also has filed a written statement. Defendants 50 51. 79. 67. 68. 76. 102. 111 have their written statements urging similar contentions and contending they are all bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and the property which they have purchased is not joint family property and the plaintiffs have 110 manner of riimt. title or interest over the suit property. They want the suit In sü lar as their properties are (.011(.(arfled 10 he dismissed 4 -62-

14. On the aforesaid pleadings the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether Nos.l(a). properties of the plaintiff proves Item (b). 2 and 3 are the ancestral the plaintiff consisting of himself and other defendants as members of a Joint family?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that in item Nos.4 and 5, he is entitled for half share?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is not bound by any loan of the 3rd defendant borrowed by any transferor alienation?

4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that item No.3 is the absolute property of 1 defendant?

5. Whether the defendants prove that there is no èause of action?

6. What is the share of the plaintiff?

7. What the defendant No.3(a)?

8. What. order or decree? Lz 63

15. Subseqtieriilv. ilie loliowin additional were Iranied. Additional Isues framed on 14.3.2002

1. Whether de1endant prove that suit is not properly valued and Couri lee paid is in s u lii e i e iii ?

2. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of the pan ies?

3. Whether defendant No.9. 14, :37. 38. 41. 67, 68, 86 and 102 prove thai they are the bonafide purchasers staled in their written statement?

4. Does delendant No. 102 prove thai sale of properly in his lavour on l0.. 1984 is for legal necessity?

5. I)oes defendant No. 102 prove thai the sud i s b a r r e d by t i iii e? Additional Isues framed on 18.3.2002 1 . Whether deleiiclants :3 and 79 1)ro’e that I he bona fide purchasers. Ion value wilbout 11011cc claim of plain tiffs? 64 Additional Isues lraiiied on 2.4.2002

1. \Vhet her the plaiiilills plaint sehedule 6. 7. 8 and 9 properties are ih joint family pruprrli’s and they have 2 /3 share in those properties?

2. Does defendant No.4 family a rra neni ‘n t (tat Ud 20.4. 1 983?

3. Does delendani No.4 prove that the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties?

4. Does delendani No.1 prove thai, the suit is not properly valued and Court lee paid is i n s u ffi ci e n 1?

5. Whether defendants No.50 and 51 prove they are the honafide l)urchasers for valuable consideration? Additional Isues framed on 27.05.2002

1. Does defendant No. 1 1 1 prove that he is purchaser site No.21 br valuable eon side ration’? H. Additional Issue No.1 dated 14.03.2002 and 4 dated 02.04.2002 retardin valuation of the suit of the court lee paid were tried as preliminary issues. 4 -65- The Trial Court held that the valuation is not proper in respect of Item No.3 and therefore it called upon the plaintilTs to file a valuation slip and accordingly pay requisite fee. Thereafter, on 12.07.2002 reJecting the valuation sup filed by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs were permitted to pay court fee of their share on a sum of Rs.3 lakh. Their share was Rs.58.350/- and the same was ordered to be paid. Accordingly, plaintiffs have paid the said court fee.

17. To substantiate their claim, plaintiff No.2 Jaya Lakshmi was examined as PWI. Another witness by name Chandrasekhan was examined as PW2. They produced 19 documents which are marked as Exs.Pl to P19. On behalf of defendants. dei’endant No.50 A.Jayaram was examined as 1)Wl: defendant No.5 Lalitha as DW2: defendant No.9 Venkataramanappa as DW3: wife of defendant No.4 Pushpa Mahesh as DW4: defendant No.49 Lakshminarayana Pattiy as 0W5: defendant 0 66 No.68 Nagesh Bolar a Lfl 6 Lii tenet * •

0. Neelakanian as DW7: ikmni 1 1 Murthy as 1)1.48: defendant N o Naldu as DW9: defendant \. . it’ 1! i. 1 .111111 .1 a 1)’ 10: detendant No. 102 K_P i1t titian .. .. . • t II: defendant No.33 L3.Slil a Slaaiikai .ii...i j\ 12 and defendant No.11 1 K. Ilitpj’t %% ant They ha e also produced I ZU d. t t.ir : marked as Exs.1) I to 1)120

3. defendant No.3 found ott t hi ‘ ik.ila 1 i . . .1 as Ex.C’ 1 the purpose 1)1 “10 rat i oh . ‘lie disputed signaL ore on 11w Ineflati “I p.i

18. Learned (‘otitiqel br il, p tlil.t — the impugned •Judgnient tIiL1 ‘C I i• .‘ I rial Court contended I hat the Itticlint, ,I ii t that iteni No. 3 of the plaint st lit ‘I tie i Family Property 1)111 Ii i’ tlw t 1. a’ first defendant. is lileqal. Fir’.. “jut t1t. lii) independent son rev ol lii; ‘‘ii.’ C b. a:’ I !So.3 ‘Vt)’. pttn’1itsetl titt’Ie’ t’ •I $411 1-- A -67- dated 6.7.1962. the amount came from tile income derived from item Nos. 1 & 2 of plaint schedule property which admittedly Joint family properties and therelore ihe finding thai item No.3 Is not a Joint family property and therefore plaintiffs are not entitled to ally share requires to be set aside and plaintiffs should be granted a share in the schedule property. Similarly In respect of Item Nos. 6 to 9, they also stand In the name of first defendant and the said property was acquired by her out of the Joint family Income. The trial court was in error in holding that It Is not a Joint family property and In not granting a share to the plaintiffs In the said property. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the defendants broadly supported the Impugned Judgment and decree.

19. Learned counsel Sri. P.B.RaJu. appearing for the appellant In RFA No.192/2003 contended the findings recorded by the Trial Court on additional 4- -68- issue Nos. 1 & 6 formed in 11cm no.2 to the elTect that defendant Nos. 33 & Ill are not bonafide purchasers of the sites in question is patently illegal because they purchased the sites under registered

20.08.1983

23.02.1984 before the suit was flied on 28.9.1983. The said properties were purchased from defendant Nos. 1. 2. 3. 4 & 5 who had an interest in item No.2 of the property. whether it is a partnership property or the Joint family property because the property purchased a valuable consideration. the said finding is unsustainable.

20. Learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos. 2 5 & 6 in RFA No. 85/2003. 24/2003. 736/2003 contends that the findings of the trial court that item No.2 of the plaint schedule is a Joint family property a partnership property erroneous. In fact appellant in RFA 24/2003 has filed an application under Order XXXXI Rule 27 of CPC producing documents to show the registration 4 -69- of the partnership deed. RTC extracts which clearly demonstrates that It was a partnership property.

21. The learned counsel for the appellant in RFA No. 85/2003 contends once the immovable properly is brought into partnership firm as a contribution partners. property becomes a partnership property and it. loses the character of a family property and therefore, the finding recorded by the trial court that it is a joint family property and Joint family was carrying on the business by way of partnership is unsustainable and requires to be set aside. Further, they contend the Trial Court was not Justified in not granting share to the other family members in respect of item Nos. 4 & 5 of the plaint schedule property.

22. In the light of the aforesaid submission the points that as arise for consideration in this appeal are as under. 4 -70- 1) Whether the findings of the Trial Court that item No.3 and item Nos.6 to 9 are not Joint family plaintiffs are not entitled t? a share calls for interference ? properties therefore 2) Whether the findings of the Trial Court that second lie))) of the suit schedule property is a partnership propertY is Justified ? property family Joint a 3) Whether the Trial Court was Justified in declining to grant any share to the other members of the family in plaint schedule properties 4 & 5 ?

23. Point No.1: The material on record clearly demonstrates that one L.C.Muniswamy Reddy and his wife defendant - Munilakshmainma had three sons and two daughters. Defendants 2. 3 &4 are the three sons and defendants 5 & 6 are the two daughters. The first defendant Is the widow of L C M unlswaniv Reddy. They constituted a Hindu Undivided Fanilly. L.C.Muniswamy Reddy was a Chief Engineer in the State of Mvsore. Si in ila nv t hi rd defendant Sri 1 -71- M.Suresh was an Engineer who had been to Germany and on his return, was working In Gammon India Private Ltd.. and was earning substantial amount. The materials on record do not Indicate that this Joint family Inherited any ancestral property. The specific contention of the plaintiff is that item no.3 of the plaint schedule property was acquired out of the income from the Joint family properties at item nos. 1 & 2. Item No.3 was acquired under a registered sale deed dated

6.7.1962 for a consideration of Rs.60.000/- In the name of the l’ defendant and he 3rd defendant. 3rd defendant Suresh who had half share in the property executed a sale deed In favour of his mother — defendant on 28. 11. 1968. By virtue of the aforesaid sale deed. 1’ defendant became the absolute owner. Thereafter, she in turn sold the entire property In favour of defendants 7 and 8 under a registered sale dcccl dated 28.5.1981 as per Ex.P.7. Now the question is whether thc said 4 -72- consideration of Rs.60.000/- came from the Income of the joint family out of items 1 and 2. item no.1 was purchased by L C Muniswamy Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 26.10.1966 which is marked as Ex.P.13. Item No.2 was purchased a registered sale deed dated 28.9.1963. Therefore, wheit item nos. I and 2 was purchased on 26.10.1966 as per Ex.P.13 and on 28.9. 1963 as per Ex.P.10. subsequent to the purchase of item no.3

6.7.1962. contention consideration of Rs.60.000/- paid for purchase of Item no.3 of the schedule property came from the income of the Joint family properties viz.. items I and 2. is without any substance. Therefore. trial Court was Justified in holding that item no.3 as not a Joint family property and it exclusive property of the i’ defendant in which neither the plaintiffs nor the 3rd defendant had any share. Item no.6 Is a property purchased by the 1’ defendant under a registered sale deed dated -73- - 25.4.1960. It was purchased for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-. The sale deed is produced as per Ex.D.15. Under Ex.D.53. 1’ defendant sold a portion of item no.6 under a registered sale deed dated 20.11.1961 in favour of the 6” defendant for a consideration of Rs.8000/-. What was sold was a part of item 1(b) of the suit schedule property. Again on 28.2.1975, she executed a gift deed in respect of a portion of the property in favour of the 411i defendant which is marked as Ex.P.l8. Subsequently. she bequeathed the remaining extent of land under a registered will in favour of 411 defendant. However, after the amendment of the Stamp Act, she executed a registered gift deed in respect of the property bequeathed by her in favour of the 4” defendant under a registered gift deed dated 20.8.1999 as per Ex.D.21. This clearly J% defendant was the absolute demonstrates that owner of item no.6 of the propertY and she exercised her right of ownership from time to time and there is no material on record to show that this property was acquired out of the income of the ‘S Joint family or the Income of the members of the Joint family as admittedly as on than day there was no Joint family properly in existence yielding any Income in respect of Sy.No.159/6 as described In item no.8, there is no such property. Insofar as Item no.9 is concerned. it was gifted by Mahalakshmamma to her daughter — defendant no.6 on 19.7.1983. It was her self- acquired property having purchased the under a registered sale deed dated 1.5.1967. Insofar as item no.7 Is concerned. It is a self- acquisition of l’ defendant who has sold the said property under a registered sale deed dated

14.2.1985 to one ‘itlala Sheity and the said purchaser has not beeti made a party to the said proceedIngs. In (hose circumstances, the plaintiff is not entitled to any sharc In items 6 to 9 as rightly held by the trial Court. As the said finding recorded by the trial Court is legal and valid and -75- based on legal evidence, we do not find any justification to interfere with the said finding of fact recorded by the trial Court.

24. Point No.2 Item no.2 is a property purchased in the name the partnership firm MIs Redross under a registered sale deed dated 28.9.1963. The said partnership firm came into existence under a written partnership deed dated 9.2.1962 with L C Muniswamy Reddy and other partners who were not members of the joint family. The said sale deed is produced as Ex.P.IO. Subsequently, the firm got the land converted for non-agricultural use. The firm obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner. Bangalore District 1967 and formed layout of sites in the said land. On

19.6.1971. some partners retired. The firm was reconstituted with the induction of sons and daughters of L C Muniswamy Reddy who had no manner of right. iii IC or interest in item no.2 of the plaint schedule. Muniswamy Reddy 9 -76-

14.7.1971. After his deah. his widow was admitted as a partner vide partnership deed dated 23.7.1971 who also had no right in the aforesaid property. The said firm was dissolved on 17.5.1980. Out of the total extent of the said item. 1 defendant was allotted 50400 sq.fcet. defendant no.2 was allotted 48460 sq. ft and 3”’ defendant was allotted 40560 sq.ft. The defendants who have set up this plea of partnership and who were in possession of the so- called partnership deed. did not choose to produce the partnership deed before the Court. There is no material placed on record to show that the OLher family nicinbers vho became pktrtllrrs partnership firm contributed any amount towards ‘capital of the said firm. Admittedly. on the date of purchase of the said property by the partnership firm. they were not Partners and they have not contributed any consideration for purchase of the said property. In the sale deeds executed by the defendants in favour of defendants 9 to I I I . clearly recited that originally the land where the sites are formed was Purchased by L C Muniswamy It- 77- Reddy. In the light of these undisputed facts. it is clear after the oulside partners left the partnership firm this property exclusively belonged Munlswamy Reddy. None of the partners had any preexisting flUe to the land in question. The deed of partnership is not a registered document. In the absence of any pre-existing right in these partners, a right to an immovable property could not have been transferred to them in the manner Indicated In the dissolution deed without a registered document. That is why in the sale deeds executed by them, is described as the property of L C Muniswamy Reddy and they being the family members of Munlswamy Reddy. have a share In the property after his death and it is that right which they have conveyed in the sale deeds. Therefore. after the death of Muniswamy Reddy. after the dissolution of the partnership firm, this Item no.2 of the plaint schedule property was treated as a property of Muniswamy Reddy and after his death, the property belonged to the members of the Joint family I.e.. the children and the widow of t -78- Muniswamy Reddy. It is treated as a joint family property and therefore. legal heirs of Muniswamy Reddy have a share in property. Now for the first time In the appeal the appellant In RFA No. 24/2003 has application producing the partnership deeds as well as the registration certificate. in the first documents produced in the Trial Court in support of defences taken. Those documents were in the possession of the second defendant who chose to file the statement 20 years after the filing of the suit, which written statement was rightly rejected by the Trial Court. Ii is obvious defendants were trying to keep these documents and were calling upon the plaintiff to prove their case that it is a joint family property as a sale deed part nership firm. Unfortunately the Trial Court was able to see through the game after considering their respective stands of the parties and the mat crial on record clearly property ‘-V -79- L.C.Muniswamy Reddy who purchased In the name the partnership firm as he was an official holding a high post in the Government of Mysore. the way the property was dealt clearly demonstrated that it was dealt as a Joint family property. Interest was conferred on the members of the Joint family without any consideration and when he died. his widow was admitted to the partnership without consideration and therefore. the Trial Court was Justified in holding that it was a Joint family l)llsiness carried on in the form of partnership therefore, It characteristics of a Joint family properly In which the members of he Joint family have equal rights. In fact, when the children of L. C Muniswamy Reddy were Inducted Into partnership after outsiders retired from the partnership. absolutely there was no contribution from them, it is because the partnership was the product of L C Muniswamy Reddy and the property belonged to him and it was to be treated as a joint family property. k.t t -80-

25. In the light of the aforesaid findings even, the application br addItional evidence Is allowed. it makes no difference and therefore. we do not see any Justification to allow the said application at this belated stage as the evidence on record shows even if those documents were to be admitted, clearly points out that it Is a joint family property and not that of a partnership firm.

26. Point No.3 The evidence on record discloses 3rd defendant was an Engineer, who vent to Germany and after training he caine back and was employed In Gammon India Pvt. Limited and was holding a high post and drawing good salary. It was out of that income, he purchased both items 4 and 5 of the plaint schedule property. The said property was allotted to the 3r1 defendant by the Bangabore Development Authority as per the agreement dated

18. 11 . 1963. On the coniplet ion of the lease period and on payment of the full consideration, -81- absolute sale deed dated 11.5.1983 came to be executed in the name of the 3ti defendant. These facts are not in dispute. 1’hese facts clearly demonstrate that it was the self-acquisition of the 3rd defendant. Strangely, the plaintiffs have included the said properly ii) the plaint and are claiming a share when, after the death of 3rd defendant, plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the said property. The defendants have been very fair. Though they do not claim it as a joint family property. as the plaintiff was contending that it. was a joint family property, they prayed to the Court if it is to bç held as a joint family property. they may be given a share. Similarly, item no.5 of the stilt schedule is concerned, sale deeds stand in the name of the plaintiff and 3rd defendant by a registered sale deed dated

1.8.1972 which is marked as Ex.P.9 in the case. Though a attempt was made defendants to contend that the consideration for purchase of the said property has flown front L S 82 Muniswamy Redd3 who had formed a Private Limited Company Agro Industrial Development Corporation Private Limited shic h had entered into an agreement to purchase the said properly under an agreement dated 5.4.1971. To substantiate the said claim. no evidence was produced. Therefore. the trial Court was Justified in holding that even item no.5 of the plaint %ehedule a self- acquisition of the 3tuI defendant and It is not a Joint family property therefore, plaintiffs entitled to both item nos.4 and 5 exclusIvely and others have no share in the property.

27. Insofar as item no. I of the plaint schedule is concerned, it was acquired by L C’ Munlswamy Reddy a registered

12.10.1964 and 26.10.1966 marked in the case as Exs.P.12 and P.13 and tue originals were produced and marked as Exs.i).4 and 5. It is not in dispute. lie died intestate on 14 7.1971. It is the case ol the defendants thai after his death, a memorandum ¼--- •1 -83- of family arrangement dated 20.6.1983 came to be entered between J%1 defendant children and in said part it ion. property is divided by metes and bounds and a share was given to the 3rd defendant and the portion which has fallen to (he share of the 3rd defendant is in possession of the plaintiffs. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence on record has held this case of partition is not established. Once the case of partition is not established and the so called partition was set-up to defeat the Just rights of the plaintiffs few months prior to the date of filing of the suit, said property on the death of L C Muniswarny Reddy would devolve on his children and the widow equally i.e.. each one of them are entitled to 116th share and the 1/6” share which is allotted to 3rd defendant. the plaint iffs are t’nt itled to. Thai precisely what the trial Court has done. Therefore, the trial Court was Justified in holding that plaintiffs are en lit led to 1 /6’” share Jointly both in d 84 respel 01 il’Ill IH)5. I and 2 schedule properties. Ilie lirt iteni the\ are entitled 1(3 on the dcaih of L C v1IiIIisxva1n\ Redd as his heirs representiii 3 delei1danl share. Insolar as item no 2 is (olicerned. is a j01111 laniilv properly and as the said propert’v was not partitioned durint.t the life lime ol L C MIiI1is\an3\ Reddy. even in that properly three sons. two daughters and widow are entitled to equal share which share the plaintiffs are entitled to as his flea1 rcpresentalivesi of 31 defendant. Insolar item iios.4 and 5 concerned. they are the properties the 3’ delendant which is his sell acquisition: It is not a laniilv properly: No other person has a rii.ht and on his death. the plaintiffs are entitled lo item Nos.4 and 5 exclusively.

28. Insofar as oilier properties concerned, the I)lHiIitihls have failed to establish they a r Ul ii I lain i l\ p rc)perl it i.e . ii cm

110.3 and iltili iit 1(1 t 1l1(l Ihrv1orc. tIle trial (‘Olin Vc’ t -85- was Justified in refusing to grant any share in the said property. However, while answering additional issue nos. 1 and 6. the trial Court has held defendant nos.33 1 I I bonafide purchasers for valLiable consideration.

29. It Is difficult to accept the said finding. The purchases two defendants was

20.8.1983 and 28.3.1983 much prior to the filing of the suit on 28.9.1983. They have purchased these properties from defendants 1.2.3.4 and 5. all of whom have a specific share in item no.2 of the schedule property. In item no.2, a layout formed. What they have purchased are sites. Each one of those vendors have a definite share in the said layout. When they purchased the properties from those vendors, though the said sale deed may not be binding on the said plaintiffs, certainly those sale deeds are valid: They are for a valuable consideration and they are bonafide purchasers 4 and ihe siid sale deed arc in no way affecied by the rani ci a decree icr

30. In that view of ihc matter, the said findints recorded by the trial Court that defendants 33 and 1 1 1 al-c honalidc purchasers cannot sustained. Accordingly. is set-aside. Hence, we pass the iollowiin: ORDER (1) RVA 352/2003, REA 24/03, RFA 736/03 and REA t5/03 arc dismissed. (2) REA 1 92 / 2003 is part lv allowed to ihe ext ent me ii honed. (3) Panics to hear their own costs. JUDGE JUDGE Al-i 13 / bri