IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE

AT KUNDAPURA
OS.No. /2019
Between;
Saroja Shedthy (55Years) }
D/o.Late Venkamma Shedthy }
R/a.Karuru Hosamanae }Plaintiff
Hosangadi Village&Post }
Kundapura Tq,Udupi District }

- AND -

1. Sanjeeva Shetty(73 Years) }

S/o. Late Venkamma Shedthy }
2. Rathnakara(45 Years) }
S/o.Late Jalaja Shedthy }Defendants
3. Uday Kumar Shetty(43 Years) }
S/o.Late Jalaja Shedthy }
4. Jyothi(32 Years) }
D/o.Late Jalaja Shedthy }
5. Manjunatha(30 Years) }
S/o.Late Jalaja Shedthy }
6. Shringeri @ Shrangari(28 Years) }
D/o.Late Jalaja Shedthy }
All are R/a. Karuru Hosamane }
Hosangadi Village &Post, }
Kundapura Tq& Udupi District }

PLAINT UNDER SECTION 26 ORDER VII RULE 1 & 2

OF C.P.C 1908
The plaintiff above named begs to submit as follows:
The name and registered postal address of the plaintiff
and that of the defendants is as stated above in the cause
title for the due service of all the processes, notices and
summonses of this Honorable Court in the above suit.
The counsel appearing and representing for the plaintiff
is Sri.M.Ravi Shetty,(MRS), Roll
No.KAR/____,Advocate, Room No.18, Municipal Complex
, Near New Bus Stand, Kundapura-576201. And all such
processes, notices and summonses of this Honorable
1. 2

Court may be served upon her counsel in the address

mentioned herein

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT:-

1. The plaintiff and defendants and Bunts by caste and
Hindu By religion and are governed under the Hindu
Law of Succession.

2. That the immoveable properties more fully described

in the schedule “A” herein were originally the
agricultural lease hold properties held by the Govinda
Shetty (husband of Chandamma Shedthy) on
chalageni reight and upon the advent of Karnataka
Land Reforms Act the said Govinda Shetty applied
before the Land Tribunal Kundapura in Form No.7
claiming the occupancy right over the properties
mentioned in the schedule “A” here below in his
individual capacity and the same was considered by
the Land Tribunal Kundapura in TRI No.654/655/
656/657/658/1981-82 and in between the enquiry
proceedings of the said Land Tribunal Kundapura over
the said application the Applicant Govinda Shetty
(husband of Chandamma Shedthy) died intestate on
10/08/1981 and thereafter the said detailed enquiry
the said occupancy right was ordered and conferred
over the Chandamma Shedthy (Wife of Govinda
Shetty) on 22-09-1981 and she was declared and
registered as an occupant of the “A” schedule
properties under the provisions set out in the of
Karnataka Land Reforms Act in TRI No.654/655/
656/657/658/1981-82 and she was got issued a Patta
in Form No.10 dated 26-11-1987 and since then the
said Chandamma Shedthy possessed and enjoyed the
said properties till her life time by changing every
revenue records in her name and during the course of
time the said Chandamma Shedthy died intestate and
issueless on 09-02-1998 leaving behind her only
predeceased sister Late Venkamma Shedthy’s LR’s as
her class II Legal heirs since the said Chandamma
Shedthy had no issues due to her
1. 3

marital life due to the said reason the Legal Heirs of

the Venkamma Shedthy have jointly inherited and
succeeded over the A schedule properties of the said
Chandamma Shedthy as her Class –II legal heirs and
the Class –II legal heirs i.e. the Plaintiff and
Defendants have then jointly held and possessed the
“A” schedule properties vide inheritance right of the
deceased Chandamma Shedthy.

7. Whereas the facts to be noticed is the Husband of

the Chandamma Shedthy i.e. Govinda Shetty died
intestate on 10/08/1981 and then the only sister of
the Chandamma Shedthy i.e. Venkamma Shedthy
died much prior to the death of the Chandamma
Shedthy intestate on 04/06/1991 and thereafter the
Chandamma Shedthy died intestate on 09/02/1998
and the said predeceased sister of Chandamaam
Shedthy i.e.Venkamma Shedthy had only 3 issues
namely the Plaintiff herein i.e. Saroja Shedthy and
the Sanjeeva Shetty i.e. Defendant No.1 and the Jalaja
Shedthy and among these LR’s of the Venkamma
Shedthy, one of the daughter of the Venkamma
Shedthy i.e. sister of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1
and mother of Defendants No.2 to 6 namely Jalaja
Shedthy also died intestate on 13/07/2015 and upon
the death of these members the plaintiff and
defendants have jointly held possessed and inherited
the “A” schedule properties mentioned here below due
to inheritance right being the Class II Legal heirs of the
Late Chandamma Shedthy. And all the affairs related
to the “A” schedule properties were managed by the
Plaintiff to till date. And the plaintiff has acquired the
joint right title and interest over the said properties by
virtue of inheritance and is in joint possession of the
of the said “A” schedule properties along with the
other defendants and the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1
have inherited and acquired the proportionate right
and share inherited by them as the Class II LR’s of the
Late Chandamma Shedthy and the defendants No.2 to
6 have jointly inherited and acquired the proportionate
right and share inherited by their mother deceased
1. 4

Jalaja Shedthy (sister of the Plaintiff and Defendant

No.1)due to inheritance.

8. Whereas on 20-12-2018 the plaintiff in view of

constructing a separate residential house for her urged
and requested the defendants to partition the “A”
schedule properties which were inherited by them as
the Class II Legal heirs of the Late Chandamma
Shedthy, and a meeting was convened between the
plaintiff and defendants about the said matter and it
was concluded therein for the partition and the
defendants agreed for the same and requested 4
months of time to finish the revenue work such as
change of Katha and other miscellaneous works in
connection with the said matter and the plaintiff
believed the defendants in good faith and trust and
agreed for the said condition, whereas up to the date of
the said period of 4 months as assured by them, no
such revenue and other works were initiated from the
part of the defendants and neither the change of
Katha was carried out nor the survey works were
initiated in regard of the proposed partition and all
the revenue records such as RTC etc were still stood in
the name of the deceased Chandamma Shedthy and
upon looking at such developments the plaintiff on
25-05-2019 again questioned at the defendants and
again requested them either to finish the said work as
assured by them as early as possible or to allot her
part of share in the “A” schedule immoveable
properties that she is entitled for . And for this gesture
of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 replied in response
to the said question of the Plaintiff is that there will be
such partition will done right now and no revenue
works will be done and the plaintiff will not be
allotted any such share in the “A” schedule properties
and she will not be allowed to construct any such
house building in any portion of the “A” schedule
properties and the defendants do not cooperate with
the plaintiff right now for partition and upon such a
reply from the Defendant No.1 the plaintiff shocked
and requested the other defendants to cooperate for
the said partition and even the other defendants spoke
1. 5

in support of the defendant No.1 and also replied the

same as that replied by the defendant No.1 and did
not cooperate with the Plaintiff for the proposed
partition and refused for the same on the very same
day and such an action of the defendants was against
the natural justice and was detrimental to the interest
of this plaintiff and The plaintiff had tried to amicably
settle the said matter of dispute arose between the
plaintiff and the defendants by way of mutual
discussions . But none of my efforts were stood
successful . She has been deceived by the defendants,
the defendants have acted detrimental to the interest
of the plaintiff and have caused damages and loss to
the plaintiff and have threatened her to expel out of
the said properties and threatened her not to demand
any properties and any partition and thus they have
caused injustice to the plaintiff and they have forcibly
and highhandedly deceived and threatened the
plaintiff and hence they have made the plaintiff to
suffer and deprive out of the properties and
colludingly they have caused the plaintiff to suffer and
have threatened her from claiming her rightful share .
Such an act of the defendants is against the natural
justice and equity and thereby they have caused heavy
loss and damages to the plaintiff.

9. The defendants have high handedly with their

muscle strength and money are trying to snatch and
grab the joint right and interest of the plaintiff over
these properties and are threatening her to expel out
to streets if she question or demand to have any
partition and this action of the plaintiff is against the
natural justice and equity and has put the plainitff to
a great irreparable loss and further from the believable
sources as heard these defendants are trying to
sell/alienate some portions of the suit “A” schedule
properties to some purchasers and in this regard they
are in a eager to finish the revenue work secretly
behind the back of the plaintiff and have received
somewhat considerations for the same as heard from
some believable sources.
1. 6

10. These defendants had no value for the justful

demand of partition placed by the plaintiff and they
may probably raise heavy amount of loans over these
suit “A” schedule properties by pledging them to
various banks and financial institutions and thereby
they may enjoy the properties and forcibly keep this
plaintiff far away from claiming my lawful and just
right over these suit “A” schedule properties and
thereby they have already caused and may also in
future cause injustice to plaintiff and may put her on
streets . And the defendants would expel the plaintiff
out of the house and put herself and her family to
streets and will never oblige to give the plaintiff any
properties from the same, and they will succeed to
bring their malafide intentions into actions and cause
furthermore injustice and damages to the plaintiff and
they will succeed to sell/alienate the properties and
will raise or owe additional loans and hence make the
matter more complex and rigid and this would lead to
multiplicity if litigations , and the right and interest
over the suit “A” schedule properties acquired by the
plaintiff by inheritance will be ruined off and getting
her share vide the partition of these suit “A”schedule
properties in future would sound and become tedious
to her. Hence harassed out of the such an gesture ,
the plaintiff without having any alternate and
efficacious remedy available to her under the law, has
approached this Hon’ble Court for the partition of the
“A” schedule properties. Hence this suit for partition.

11. That there is one residential house bearing Door

No.2/89 having electricity connection bearing
RR.No.BYT20195 and a open well in the ‘A’ schedule
properties. And that there are 70 coconut trees in the
same. The annual income from the ‘A’ schedule
property is 1500 coconuts and the suit “A” schedule
property has 70 various standing trees worth of timber
worth of Rs.2,00,000/- and the said income of the suit
”A” schedule properties is to be divided in the same
manner as that mentioned here above and the plaintiff
is entitled for his portion of share in the same.
1. 7

12. Hence the suit “A” schedule properties are liable

to be divided in such 3 proportionate fare and equal
shares, as per the inheritance right of the Chandamma
Shedthy and out of the said 3 fare and equal shares of
the suit “A” schedule properties one such fare and
equal share is to be allotted to the plaintiff in view of
justice and equity, and the among the rest 2 remaining
portions of the fare and equal shares the defendant
No.2 is entitle for one such fare and equal and the
defendants No.2 to 6 being the legal heirs of the Late
Jalaja Shedthy , they are jointly entitle for one such
fare and equal share of the Jalaja Shedthy as per her
inheritance right as Jalaja Shedthy in the same
manner as if she was alive at the time of this partition
of the in the “A” schedule properties. And the overall
agricultural income of the suit “A” schedule properties
may also be divided and allotted in the same manner.
13. The Cause of Action:
That the cause of action for this suit arose on
09/02/1998 and on 13/07/2015 when the
Chandamma Shedthy and Jalaja Shedthy were died
intestate and the Plaintiff along with the defendants
acquired joint right and interest over the “A” schedule
properties due to inheritance and also on 20-12-2018
when this plaintiff demanded for the partition of the
suit “A” schedule properties and subsequently on 25-
05-2019 when the defendants denied for the said
partition and it arose at Hosangadi Village of
Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District, where the suit “A”
schedule properties are situated and which is a place
within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.
14. The plaintiff values the suit at Rs.1,60,436.974
for the purpose of court fees and at Rs.8,37,074.58 for
the purpose of jurisdiction and the court fee of
Rs.200=00 is paid on the plaint under Section 35(2) of
the Karnataka Court fees and suits valuation act 1958.
15. PRAYER : Wherefore it is prayed that the
honorable court may be pleased to pass a judgment and
decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants.
 1. 8

(a) Directing the division of the under

mentioned ‘A’ schedule properties into
3 fair and equal shares by meets and
bounds with reference to the frontage
and convenience, good and bad, fertile
and in fecund soil and allot one such
share to the plaintiff (This relief is
valued at Rs.1,60,436.974 for the
purpose of court fees and at
Rs.8,37,074.58 for the purpose of
jurisdiction and the court fees of
Rs.200=00 is paid under section 35(2)
of K.C.F. and S.V.Act 1958)
For court fees Rs.1,60,436.974
For Jurisdiction Rs.8,37,074.58
(b)Directing the defendants to pay the
plaintiff, his share of income in the
income produced in the suit “A”
schedule properties from this date till
delivery of his share(This relief being
incidental to the main relief of partition,
it is not valued separately as it is no
necessary to do so)
(c) Directing the defendants or such of
them to pay the cost of this Suit to the
plaintiff and to pass such other and
Further relief as the court deems fit
under the Circumstances of the case

Total = For court fees Rs.1,60,436.974

For Jurisdiction Rs.8,37,074.58
16.

17.

‘A’ SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

Immovable properties situated in Hosangadi Village of
Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District 19.
18.

Sl. Sy.No/S.D.No Kissam Extent Assessment

No (A-C) (Rs.Ps)
20.

1. 2/10P3 Nanja(Wet) 4.15 2.86

2. 2/P2 Nanja(Wet) 1.50 3.12
3. 2/4P10 Nanja(Wet) 0.26 1.07
4. 2/10P2 Nanja(Wet) 0.23 0.16
1. 9

Kundapura
Date: /05/2019 Plaintiff Advocate for Plaintiff

I, the plaintiff, above named do hereby declare that the

facts stated above are all true to the best of my
knowledge.

Kundapura
Date: /05/2019 Plaintiff

LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE PLAINTIFF

ALONG WITH THIS PLAINT
1) Notarized Copies of the Death Certificates of the
Govinda Shetty, Chandamma Shedthy,
Venkamma Shedthy and Jalaja Shedthy.

2) Notarized copies of the Form No.7, Judgment

and Form No.10 issued by the Land Tribunal
Kundapura in TRI No.654/655/
656/657/658/1981-82

3) RTC Extracts of the Plaint “A” schedule

properties

Kundapura
Date: /05/2019 Advocate for Plaintiff