Bangalore District CourtSri. Krishnappa vs Sri. Hanumanthappa on 1 June, 2023KABC010159642014\n\n\n\n\n  IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &\n  SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY: (CCH.7)\n      Dated this the 1st day of JUNE , 2023.\n\n                      PRESENT\n            BALAGOPALAKRISHNA\n    XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,\n                BANGALORE CITY.\n\n                    O.S.NO.5879/2014\n\nPLAINTIFFS    :    1. Sri. Krishnappa\n                   since dead by his Lrs.\n\n                   1(a) Smt. Lalithamma\n                   W/o. Late Krishnappa\n                   Aged about 60 years.\n\n                   1(b) Sri. Harish\n                   S/o. Late Krishnappa\n                   Aged about 22 years.\n\n                   1(c) Aruna\n                   D/o. Late Krishnappa\n                   Aged about 20 years.\n\n                   All the above persons are\n                   r/a. Vidyasagara (Sarai Palya)\n                   Thanisandra Main Road\n                   K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.\n\n                   2. Sri. Chandrappa\n                   S/o. Late Narayanappa\n                   Aged about 54 years.\n 2                  O.S.No.5879/2014\n\n\n3. Sri. Venkatesh\nsince dead represented by his Lrs.\n\n3(a) Meena\nW/o. Late Venkatesh\nAged about 50 years.\n\n3(b) Naveen\nS/o. Late Venkatesh\nAged about 27 years.\n\n3(c) Gowtham\nS/o. Late Venkatesh\nAged about 23 years.\n\nAll are r/at . Thanisandra village\nK.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk\nBengaluru.\n\n4. Sri. Muniraju\nS/o. Late Narayanappa\nAged about 46 years.\n\n1 to 4 are r/at. Sarai Palya (vidya Sagara)\nThanisandra main Road, K.R.Puram\nHobli, Bangalore East Taluk.\n\n5. Smt. Nagamma\nSince dead repr. By her Lrs.\n\n5(a) Bhagyamma\nD/o. Late Ramanna and Nagamma\nW/o. Ramesh\nAged about 40 years.\n\n5(b) Bharathi\nD/o. Late Ramanna and Nagamma\nW/o. Ravi, Aged about 37 years.\n\n\n5(c) Kantharaj\n                 3                 O.S.No.5879/2014\n\n\n               S/o. Late Ramanna and Nagamma\n               Aged about 33 years.\n               All are r/at. Channasandra Village\n               K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk\n               Bengaluru.\n\n               6. Smt. Ashwathamma,\n               D/o. Late Narayanappa\n               W/o. Krishnappa\n               aged about 63 years.\n               R/at. Sarai palya (Vidya Sagara)\n               Thanisandra Dakle\n               K.R.Puram Hobli\n               Bangalore East Taluk.\n\n               /vs/­\n\nDEFENDANTS :   1. Sri. Hanumanthappa\n               S/o. Late Anjinappa\n               Aged about 60 years.\n               2. Sri. Pillaiah @ Chikkanna\n               S/o. Late Anjinappa,\n               Aged about 55 years.\n               1 & 2 are r/at Sarai Palya (vidya Sagara)\n               Thanisandra Dakle, K.R.PURAM HOBLI\n               Bangalore East Taluk.\n               3. Anjinamma\n               D/o. Late Anjinappa\n               W/o. Late Channakrishnappa\n               aged about 63 years, R/at.\n               Devarajanagara\n               Doddaballapura Town ­561203\n               Bangalore Rural District.\n\n               4. Sri. Munavar Burian\n               S/o. Late Kedar Burian\n               Aged about 58 years\n               R/at. No.12/1, 5th cross Road\n               Hennur, R.T.Nagar Post\n                             4                      O.S.No.5879/2014\n\n\n                           Bangalore­560032.\n\n                           5. Sri. P.Muniyappa\n                           S/o. Late Poojappa\n                           Aged about 58 years\n                           R/at. Thanisandra village\n                           Arabic College Post\n                           Saraipalya, K.R.Puram Hobli,\n                           Bangalore East Taluk\n                           Bangalore­560045.\n\n                           6. Sri. Ashraf Buran\n                           S/o. Late Khadar Buran\n                           Aged about 36 years\n                           R/at. No.12/1, Dinnur\n                           R.T.Nagar Post, 5th cross,\n                           Bangalore­560032.\n\nDate of Institution of the suit          :    01/ 08 /2014\n\nNature of the Suit                       :    Partition\n\nDate of commencement of recording\nof evidence                       : 09­02­2023\n\nDate on which the Judgment was\npronounced                               : 01­06­2023\n\n                                Year/s       Month/s      Day/s\n\nTotal Duration     :            08            10             01\n\n\n\n                             (BALAGOPALAKRISHNA)\n                       XXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n                                  Bengaluru City.\n                           5                       O.S.No.5879/2014\n\n\n\n                           JUDGMENTThe    plaintiffs   have     filed   this   suit   against    the\ndefendants for partition and separate possession of their ½\nshare in the suit schedule property, sale deed dated 10­05­\n2004 executed by the defendant No.4 and 6 in favour of\ndefendant No.5 is null and void and not binding on the share\nof the plaintiffs to declare that the compromise entered\nbetween defendant Nos.1 to 3 among defendant Nos.4 to 6 is\nnot binding on the plaintiffs share, the injunction and other\nreliefs as prayed in the plaint.2.    The facts leading to filing of this case in brief\n\nare as under:­\n\n       The plaintiffs are seeking partition and in property\nsurvey number 66/20 measuring 6 guntas situated at\nSarayipalya,    Thanisandra        Dhakale,       K.R.Puram     Hobli,\nBengaluru East Taluk with specific boundaries. According to\nthe plaintiffs, the said property originally belonged to their\ngrand father by name Pillaiah @ Pilliga. The said Pillaiah @\nPilliga had two wives, 1st wife by name Muniyamma, through\nher Anjinappa was born, where as 2nd wife by name\nNarasalamma,      through     her     Narasalamma         was      born.\nAnjinappa the first wife son married one Anjinamma she is\narrayed as defendant No.3, her husband Anjinappa is no\nmore. The 2nd wife son by name Narayanappa had married\none Shanthamma. The said Narayanappa and Shanthamma\nare no more.6                    O.S.No.5879/20142.1     The plaintiffs are representing the branch of\nNarayanappa and Shanthamma where as defendant Nos.1 to\n3 are representing the branch of Anjinappa. After the death\nof Anjinappa and Anjinamma and Narayanappa and\nShanthamma the plaintiffs and defendants have succeeded\nthe suit schedule properties.      During the life time of\nAnjinappa and Narayanappa they were in joint possession\nand after death the plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 3 are\ncontinued to be in the joint possession of the suit schedule\nproperties. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 are using\nthe suit schedule property to store the manure and 'A' Stock\nover the suit schedule properties. Presently, all the revenue\nrecords are in the name of Anjinappa i.e., father of defendant\nNos.1 to 3 who is the Kartha of the family.2.2     It is submitted that plaintiffs are not worldly\nwise and they are ignorant of law.        After the death of\nAnjinappa and Narayanappa the 1st defendant being the\nelder of family has become the Kartha of the joint family of\nplaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3.      The defendant No.1\nmisused the Trust and confidence of the plaintiffs.       It is\nsubmitted that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had filed\nO.S.NO.9142/2003 on the file of this court for declaration and\ninjunction and after came to know the said fact the plaintiffs\nherein have filed the application to implead them as\ndefendants.      The same was rejected by this court.      The7                  O.S.No.5879/2014defendant Nos.1 to 3 have no absolute right over the suit\nschedule property in collusion with the defendant Nos.4 to 6\nthey have executed a registered sale deed in favour of\ndefendant No.5 on 10­05­2004 only with an intention to\ndeprive the right of the plaintiffs.2.3   It is submitted that, during the life time of the\nfather of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and husband of defendant\nNo.3 by name Anjinappa had executed a registered sale deed\ndated 12­01­1940 by selling the survey number 66/25\nsituated at Thanisandra village measuring 06 guntas in\nfavour of one Mohd. Shariff s/o. Mohadeen Sharief by paying\nspecific boundaries.    In fact, the plaintiffs father by name\nNarayanappa was not a signatory to the sale deed. From the\nsaid sale deed it is gathered the defendant Nos.4 & 5 have\nright only in respect of survey number 66/25 and not in\nrespect of suit survey number 60/20. In spite of the above\nfact, defendant Nos.4 & 6 while selling the property on 10­05­\n2004 they have mentioned survey number 66/20 which is not\nbinding on the plaintiffs.     It is also contended that, the\ndefendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.NO.9142/03 they have entered\ninto compromise with the defendant Nos.4 to 6 only with an\nintention to deprive the right of the plaintiffs, thus contended\nthat compromise entered into between the defendant Nos.1 to\n3 and 4 to 6 is collusive one and it is not binding on the\nplaintiffs. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the\nplaintiffs have demanded the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to effect8                   O.S.No.5879/2014partition, same was refused by the defendant Nos.1 to 3.\nHence, cause of action was arose for the plaintiff to file the\nsuit. Accordingly, prayed to decree the suit with costs.3.     In response to the summons issued by this\n\ncourt, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have appeared\n\nthrough their counsel and filed the written statement\n\nas under:­\n\n      At the first instance, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 from\npara Nos.1 to 15 of the written statement have denied the\naverments made in the plaint are all false and created for the\npurpose of this suit. It is the specific case of the defendants\nthat the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 by name Anjinappa\nand father of plaintiffs by name Narayanappa had divided all\ntheir ancestral properties and they were enjoying their\nrespective shares. The father of plaintiffs after taking share\nhe has sold the properties fallen to his share as per his\nwhims and fancies. The plaintiffs knowing very well the said\ntransaction of their father simply filed the suit to make\nwrongful gain. The suit schedule property absolutely fallen\nto the share of father of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Therefore,\nthe plaintiffs are not entitled for share in the suit schedule\nproperty once again. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit on\nthese grounds alone. The plaintiffs have suppressed the real\nfacts and filed a false suit against the defendants.       It is\nfurther stated that, the father of the plaintiffs by name\nNarayanappa after separated from the family of Pillappa he\nwas residing separately.     There after on 10­10­2008 the9                  O.S.No.5879/2014plaintiffs along with their father Narayanappa got purchased\ntheir family properties under registered partition deed dated\n10­10­2008. Thus contended that the plaintiffs purposefully\nhave not produced the said partition deed. At the partition\namong the plaintiffs the suit schedule property was an\nexclusive property of the Anjinappa. Thus, contended that at\nany point of time the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3\nnever lived as joint family members and suit schedule\nproperty is not the joint family property.3.1    It is admitted that suit schedule property survey\nnumber 66/20 and survey number 66/25 are separate and\ndistinct properties having different boundaries.     Inspite of\nthe above fact, the defendant Nos.4 & 6 have attempted to\ninterfere with the possession of the defendants. Hence, they\nhave forced to file the O.S.NO.9142/03. Accordingly, prayed\nto dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs.4. On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties,\nfollowing issues are framed :­\n\n                              ISSUES1) Whether plaintiffs prove that suit schedule\n       property is their ancestral joint family\n       property?2) Whether plaintiffs prove that, plaintiffs and\n       defendant Nos.1 and 2 constitute Joint Hindu\n       Family?3) Whether defendants No.1 and 2 prove that\n       ancestral properties were divided between the10                 O.S.No.5879/2014father of plaintiffs and the father of\n         defendants No.1 and 2 in the year 1960 as\n         contended by defendants No.1 and 2 in para\n         No.16 of their written statement?4) Whether suit is properly valued and court\n         fee paid is insufficient?5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to half share\n         in the suit schedule property?6) What Order or Decree?5.        On the side of the plaintiffs, PW.1 examined and\nEx.P1 to Ex.P.16 are got marked. No evidence is adduced on\nthe side of the defendants.6.     Heard the arguments on plaintiffs side.7.     On the basis of the evidence available on record, my\nfindings on the above issues are as under:­\n              Issue No.1        :     In the Negative;Issue No.2        :     In the Negative;\n              Issue No.3        :     In the Negative;\n              Issue No.4        :     In the Affirmative;\n              Issue No.5        :     In the Affirmative;\n              Issue No.6        :     As per final order\n                                      for the following:11                  O.S.No.5879/2014REASONS\n\n      8. ISSUE Nos.1 to 3:­These issues are interlinked and they are taken\ntogether for common discussion to avoid repetition.According to the plaintiffs, the propositor of the family\nof plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 is one Pillaiah @ Pilliga.\nHe had two wives, 1st wife by name Muniyamma, through\nher Anjinappa was born, where as 2nd wife by name\nNarasalamma. The said Pillaiah @ Pilliga through first wife\nhad a son by name         Anjinappa, likewise through 2nd wife\nNarasalamma he had a son by name Narayanappa. The 1st\nwife son Anjinappa married one Anjinamma and she had\ntwo sons who are the defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiffs\nare   representing     the     branch   of   Narayanappa      and\nShanthamma i.e., second wife son. The said relationship is\nnot much dispute among the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1\nto 3 because in para No.16 of the written statement the\ndefendant Nos.1 and 2 have categorically admitted the\nrelationship among them and plaintiff but taken a defence\nthat father of the plaintiffs and father of defendant Nos.1 and\n2 were separated in the year 1960.            Thus, I come to\nconclusion that the plaintiffs have proved their relationship.9.    The      plaintiffs   are   seeking   partition    in\nSy.No.66/20 measuring 6 guntas situated at Sarayipalya i.e.,12                     O.S.No.5879/2014Thanisandra Dhakale, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East\nTaluk. According to the plaintiffs the suit schedule property\nis the ancestral property and joint family property of the\nplaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3. Further, plaintiffs have\nalso contended that apart from the suit schedule property the\nfamily of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 was also\nowning survey number 66/25. This property was sold by the\nfather of defendant Nos.1 and 2 by name Anjinappa on 12­01­\n1940, for that father of the plaintiffs was not a signatory.\nThe plaintiffs in order to prove that suit schedule property is\nthe joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1\nto 3.   Second plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and his\nexamination­in­chief has been filed by way of affidavit\nwherein, he reiterated the averments made in the plaint and\ngot marked the following documents:Ex.P1:­           Is the 'G' Tree\n          Ex.P2:­           Is the Form No.5 recorded as\n                            per Hissa, Mojini. As per that\n                            document           Sy.No.66/20\n                            standing in the name of\n                            propositor Pillaiah.Ex.P3:­           Is the RTC for Sy.No.66/20 for\n                            the year 1969, 1979, 1972,\n                            1973 wherein at column No.9\n                            is in the name of father of\n                            defendant Nos.1 and 2.Ex.P4:­           Is the RTC for suit survey\n                            number standing in the name\n                            of defendant Nos.1 and 2.Ex.P5:­           Is the RTC for suit survey\n                            number for the year 1979­\n                            1982, 1983­84 wherein at\n                            column No.9 is in the name of13                    O.S.No.5879/2014father of defendant Nos.1 and\n                2 by name Anjinappa.Ex.P6:­         Is the RTC for suit survey\n                number for the year 1984­85\n                to 1988­89 wherein at column\n                No.9 is standing in the name\n                of Anjinappa.Ex.P7:­         Is the RTV for the suit survey\n                number for the year 1989­90\n                to 1994­95 wherein column\n                No.9 is standing in the name\n                of Anjinappa.Ex.P8:­         Is the RTC for suit survey\n                number for the year 1995­96\n                to 1999­2000 wherein column\n                No.9 is standing in the name\n                of father of defendant nos.1\n                and 2 by name Anjinappa.Ex.P9:­         Is the Certified copy of RTC\n                for suit survey number for the\n                year     2002­03  column     9\n                standing in the name of father\n                of defendant Nos.1 and 2 by\n                name Anjinappa.Ex.P10:­        Is the RTC for suit survey\n                number for the year 2012­13\n                standing in the name of\n                defendant No.5.Ex.P11:­        Is the Certified copy of the\n                sale deed dated 12­01­1940\n                executed    by    father      of\n                defendant Nos.1 and 2 by\n                name      Anjinappa     selling\n                survey number 60/25 in\n                favour of Mohd. Sharief.Ex.P12:­        Is the Certified copy of the\n                sale deed dated 10­05­2004\n                executed by defendant Nos.4\n                and 6 in favour of defendant\n                No.5 by selling the suit survey\n                number reciting that in the14                   O.S.No.5879/2014sale deed dated 11­05­1940, it\n                               was wrongly mentioned as\n                               Sy.No.66/25 instead of 60/20.Ex.P13:­            Is the entire order     sheet\n                               maintained                 in\n                               O.S.NO.9142/03.Ex.P14:­            Is the Certified copy of\n                               memorandum of compromise\n                               entered into between the\n                               defendants herein.Ex.P15:­            Is the Certified copy of the\n                               decree       passed       in\n                               O.S.NO.9142/03 on the basis\n                               of the compromise.Ex.P16:­            Is the Certified copy of the\n                               plaint presented by defendant\n                               Nos.1 and 2 herein, in\n                               O.S.NO.9142/03 in respect of\n                               Sy.No.66/20.The evidence of PW.1 is not challenged by the\ndefendant Nos.1 and 2 by cross­examining the PW.1.10.     The defendant Nos.1 and 2 except filing the\nwritten statement have not stepped into the witness box to\nprove the defense taken in the written statement. Thus, the\ndefense taken by the defendant is left unproved.           Merely\nbecause of that, the plaintiffs are not entitled for decree\nbecause of various circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court\nand Hon'ble High Court are pleased to hold that weaknesses\nof the defendants is not a ground to decree the suit of the\nplaintiffs, where plaintiffs succeeds or fails on his own\nstrength and weaknesses of the defendants is not a ground to\ndecree the suit.      On the basis of the said ruling, let me15                 O.S.No.5879/2014consider    the case of the plaintiffs.   The plaintiffs except\nEx.P2 i.e., form No.5 prepared at the time of Hissa Mojini no\nother documents is produced to say that suit survey number\n66/20 was belonged to their grand father by name Pillaiaha.\nEven there is no recital in Ex.P2 when exactly Hissa Mojini\nwork was under taken by the ADLR. Under that document\nthe court cannot come to conclusion that the suit schedule\nproperty originally belonged to Pillaiah. Ex.P3 to P10 are the\nCertified copies of RTC's for the year 1969­1970 to 2002­03\nwherein the name of the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 by\nname Anjinappa is appearing in column No.9. If really, the\nsuit schedule property was belonged to joint family of the\nplaintiffs and defendants there should have been entry to the\neffect that Anjinappa and Narayanappa jointly. Therefore,\n\nunder the said documents it can be gathered that suit\nschedule property is the property of Anjinappa the father of\nthe defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs from the year 1969\nto 1970 till 2002­03 they have not questioned the entries in\nthe name of father of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Thus, it can be\ninferred that suit schedule property belonged to the father of\ndefendant Nos.1 and 2.11.    Further, the burden is heavily cast upon the\nplaintiffs that the family of the plaintiffs and defendants\nNo.1 to 3 apart from having suit survey number 66/20 they\nwere also owning the survey No.66/25. In this regard the\nplaintiffs have not produced any document except the sale16                   O.S.No.5879/2014deed. Nodoubt, in the written statement the defendant Nos.1\nand 2 have admitted the fact that suit survey number 66/20\nand 66/25 are separate and distinct property, merely because\nof that, the court cannot come to conclusion that the family of\nthe plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 were also owning the\nsurvey number 66/25.        At this juncture, it is necessary to\nverify the compromise petition marked at Ex.P14, wherein it\nis stated that,\n         "Whereas the 2nd defendant filed the written\n         statement contending that the suit schedule\n         property has been alienated by the father of the\n         plaintiffs namely Anjanappa s/o. Pillaiah in\n         favour of Mohammed Sheriff grand father of the\n         defendants No.1 and 3 under the registered sale\n         deed dated 11­05­1940 and the boundaries\n         mentioned therein pertains to Sy.No.66/20 and\n         inadvertently the survey number has been\n         mentioned     as     Sy.No.66/25       instead   of\n         Sy.No.66/20 pursuant to the sale deed the\n         vendor   of   the     second   defendant   namely\n         Mohammed Sheriff continued be in possession\n         and enjoyment of the suit schedule property\n         during his life time and after his demise, his\n         grand children namely Munawar Burian and\n         Ashraf Burian defendants No.1 and 3 they\n         continue to be in physical possession and\n         subsequently obtained the mutation in respect of17                   O.S.No.5879/2014the land bearing Sy.No.66/20 under R.R.T\n         Dispute No.51/2003­04 which calumniated in\n         filing      the   appeal   by   the   plaintiff        No.1\n         R.A.NO.296/2003­04          which     came        to     be\n         dismissed and the said order reached the\n         finality.     The plaintiffs admit that the grand\n         father of the defendants No.1 and 3 has\n         purchased the land bearing Sy.No.66/20 as per\n         the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed. "In view of the said compromise petition, it is gathered\nthat the family of the plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 3 does\nnot possess survey number 66/25, while selling the survey\nnumber 66/20, the father of defendant Nos.1 and 2 wrongly\nmentioned survey number as well as boundaries as 66/25\ninstead of 66/20.12.   The said mistakes has been corrected by the\nAnjinappa's son i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2 by entering into\ncompromise with the legal representatives of Mohd. Sharief.\nIn view of the said matter suit survey number 66/20 is not\navailable to the family of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1\nto 3. Subsequently, as per Ex.P12 the suit survey number\nwas sold by defendant Nos.4 & 6 to the defendant No.5.\nFurther the plaintiffs have not questioned the Ex.P11 and\nEx.P12 within time.          Therefore, the plaintiffs have not\nestablished that suit schedule property is the ancestral and\njoint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to18                   O.S.No.5879/20143 and they have also constituted joint family. In view of the\n\nabove findings, in respect of the suit schedule\n\nproperty answer to Issue Nos.3 does not arise at all.Accordingly, Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the\n\nNegative.13.   ISSUE NO.4:­\n\n      This issue deals with two aspects.i)   Whether    subject   matter    is\n              properly valued or not and court fee\n              paid by the plaintiff on the plaint is\n              insufficient?In order to appreciate the said fact, the court has to\nconsider the valuation slip furnished by the plaintiffs along\nwith the plaint. The plaintiff has valued the subject matter\nas per Section 35(a), 24(d), 26(c) of the KCF and S.V Act and\npaid the court fee of Rs.425. The plaintiffs purposefully have\nnot shown what is the market value of the suit schedule\nproperty.   Admittedly, the suit schedule property is still\nagricultural land and there is no material to say that\nwhether the suit schedule property comes within the\njurisdiction of BBMP or not. Under such circumstances, the\nvaluation made by the plaintiff has to be accepted and\naccordingly, I come to conclusion that the plaintiffs have\nvalued the subject matter properly and court fee paid by19                     O.S.No.5879/2014them is also sufficient. Hence, this Issue is answered in\n\nthe Affirmative.14.     ISSUE NO.5:­\n      In view of the discussions made in the Issue Nos.1 to 3\nthe plaintiffs are not entitled for share in the suit schedule\n\nproperty. Hence, this issue is answered in the Negative.15.     ISSUE NO.6:­\n\n      For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to\npass the following:­\n                            ORDER\n\n                 Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby\n              dismissed.Looking into the relationship\n              among the parties, there is no order\n              as to costs.Draw decree accordingly.(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected\n      and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1 st\n      day of June, 2023).(BALAGOPALAKRISHNA)\n        XXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,\n                       BENGALURU CITY.ANNEXURE\n\n            List of Witnesses examined for the plaintiff :20                     O.S.No.5879/2014P.W.1 - Chandrappa\n\nList of Documents exhibited for the plaintiff:Ex.P1:­          Is the 'G' Tree\n Ex.P2:­          Is the Form No.5 recorded as\n                  per Hissa, Mojini.\n Ex.P3:­          Is the RTC for Sy.No.66/20 for\n                  the year 1969, 1979, 1972,\n                  1973 .\n Ex.P4:­          Is the RTC for suit survey\n                  number standing in the name\n                  of defendant Nos.1 and 2.\n Ex.P5:­          Is the RTC for suit survey\n                  number for the year 1979­\n                  1982, 1983­84 .\n Ex.P6:­          Is the RTC for suit survey\n                  number for the year 1984­85\n                  to 1988­89 .\n Ex.P7:­          Is the RTC for the suit survey\n                  number for the year 1989­90\n                  to 1994­95.\n Ex.P8:­          Is the RTC for suit survey\n                  number for the year 1995­96\n                  to 1999­2000.\n Ex.P9:­          Is the Certified copy of RTC\n                  for suit survey number for the\n                  year 2002­03.\n Ex.P10:­         Is the RTC for suit survey\n                  number for the year 2012­13.\n Ex.P11:­         Is the Certified copy of the\n                  sale deed dated 12­01­1940 .\n Ex.P12:­         Is the Certified copy of the\n                  sale deed dated 10­05­2004 .\n Ex.P13:­         Is the entire order       sheet\n                  maintained                   in\n                  O.S.NO.9142/03.\n Ex.P14:­         Is   the   Certified   copy   of21                  O.S.No.5879/2014memorandum of compromise .\n  Ex.P15:­        Is the Certified copy of the\n                  decree       passed       in\n                  O.S.NO.9142/03 on the basis\n                  of the compromise.\n  Ex.P16:­        Is the Certified copy of the\n                  plaint presented by defendant\n                  Nos.1 and 2 herein, in\n                  O.S.NO.9142/03 in respect of\n                  Sy.No.66/20.List of Witnesses examined for the Defendant :Nil\n\nList of Documents exhibited for the defendant:Nil\n\n\n    XXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,\n                BENGALURU CITY.22                  O.S.No.5879/2014Judgment pronounced in open court\nvide separate detailed judgment with\nthe following operative portion:­\n\n             ORDER\n\n    Suit of the plaintiffs is\nhereby dismissed.Looking      into    the\nrelationship    among     the\nparties, there is no order as\nto costs.\n    Draw decree accordingly.\n\n\n\n               XXII ACC & SJ, B'LURU.