Os 309 2012

IN THE COURT OF PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,

HUBLI
PRESENT : SRI. S.N.KALKANI, B.Com.,LL.M.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBLI.
O.S. No.309/2012 clubbed with

O.S. No. 120/2012
Dated : 15th September 2015
In O.S. No.309/2012
PLAINTIFF/S : 1. Smt. Snehalata W/o Ambasa

Kabadi, Age: 62 years, Occ: House
wife, No.37, Apoorva Nagar,
Manjunath Nagar Cross, Gokul
road, Hubli.
2. Smt. Jayashree W/o Ramesh
Burbure, Age; 60 years, Occ:
Housewife, H.No.27, Central
excise Colony, Gokul road, Hubli.
(By Sri. L.D. Kulkarni/Anant R. Hegde,

Advocates)
V/s.
DEFENDANT/S : 1. Suresh S/o Tukarmsa Jituri
Since deceased by his L.Rs.
1(a) Vijayalaxmi W/o Suresh Jituri

Age: 58 years, Occ: Household,
R/o: plot No.33, Apoorva Nagar,
Manjunath Nagar cross, Gokul
Road, Hubli.
1(b) Aruna W/o Rajesh Burbure

Age: 36 years, Occ: Household
R/o: H.No.18, Purshotam Nagar,
Vidyanagar, Hubli.
2 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
1(c) Suvarna W/o Vinaya Jartarghar,

R/o: Eureka Colony, Keshwapur,
Hubli.
2. Jayachand S/o Tukaramsa Jituri

Age: 60 years, occ: Business, R/o
Plot No.33/39, Gurukrupa
House, Manjunath Nagar, Gokul
Road, Hubli.
3. Nijaguneppa S/o: Rudrappa

Gangavati, Age: 86 years, Occ:
Business, R/o: Gangavati Silk
Palace, Dajibanpeth, Hubli.
4. Smt. Sulochana W/o Basavaraj

Kamatgi, Age: 56 years, Occ:
Housewife and Business, R/o
Gangavati Silk Palace,
Dajibanpeth.
5. Vishwanath S/o Basavaraj

Kamatagi, Age: 37 years, Occ:
Business, R/o: Gangavati Silk
Palace, Dajibanpeth, Hubli.
6. Anand S/o Basavaraj Kamatagi
Age: 34 years Occ: Business,
R/o: Gangavati Silk Palace,
Dajibanpeth, Hubli.
7. Basavaraj S/o Chennabasappa

Dharwadkar, Age: 59 years, Occ:
Business, R/o: No.2, Revenue
Colony, Vijayanagar, Hubli.
8. Sheshmal S/o Tekchandji

Bandari, Age: 67 years, Occ:
Business, R/o: Keshwapur,
Hubli.
3 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
9 Prakash S/o Premachandaji

Kothari, Age: 60 years, Occ:
Business, R/o: Keshwapur,
Hubli.
10. Shyam S/o Late Ramasa
Jartarghar, Age: 60 years,
Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.9,
Eureka Colony, Keshwapur,
Hubli.
(Sri.R.T. Khode, Adv. for Dft.
No.1(a)(b)(c) and Deft. No.2, Sri. R.S.
Baragundi Adv. for Deft. No.3 to 6,
S.B. Hiremath, Adv. for Deft. No.7,
Sri. R.B. Hebbar, Adv. for Deft. No.8,
9 and Sri. S.V. Patil, Adv. for Dft.
No.10)
Date of institution of suit : 14.09.2012
Nature of suit : Partition and Separate

Possession
Date of recording of : 29.11.2014
evidence
Date on which Judgment : 15.09.2015
is pronounced
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 03 00 01
In O.S. No. 120/2012
PLAINTIFF/S : M/s. Eureka Builders,

A registered Parnership Firm
having its office at Mohak
Chambers, Station Road, Hubli
Represented by its Parner Shyam
S/o Late Ramasa Jartarghar,
Age: 59 years, Occ: Business,
4 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
R/o: H.No.9, Eureka Colony,

Keshwapur, Hubli.
(By Sri. S.V. Patil, Adv.)
V/s.
DEFENDANT/S : 1. Suresh S/o Tukarmsa Jituri

Since deceased by his L.Rs.
1(a) Vijayalaxmi W/o Suresh Jituri

R/o: plot No.33, Apoorva Nagar,
Manjunath Nagar cross, Gokul
Road, Hubli.
1(b) Aruna W/o Rajesh Burbure

Age: 36 years, Occ: Household
R/o: H.No.18, Purshotam Nagar,
Vidyanagar, Hubli.
1(c) Suvarna W/o Vinaya Jartarghar,

R/o: Eureka Colony, Keshwapur,
Hubli.
2. Jayachand S/o Tukaramsa Jituri

Age: 58 years, occ: Business, R/o
Plot No.33/39, Gurukrupa
House, Manjunath Nagar, Gokul
Road, Hubli.
3. Smt. Snehalata W/o Ambasa

Kabadi, Age: 62 years, Occ:
House wife, No.37, Apoorva
Nagar, Manjunath Nagar Cross,
Gokul road, Hubli.
5 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
4. Smt. Jayashree W/o Ramesh

Burbure, Age; 60 years, Occ:
Housewife, H.No.27, Central
excise Colony, Gokul road, Hubli.
(Sri. R.T. Khode, Adv. for Dft. No.1(a)
(b) (c) and Dft. No.2 and Sri. L.D.
Kulkarni/Aanant R. Hegde, Adv.for
Dft. No.3 and 4)
Date of institution of suit : 12.04.20012
Nature of suit : Specific performance of

Contract
Date of recording of : 29.11.2014
evidence
Date on which Judgment : 15.09.2015
is pronounced
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 03 05 03
COMMON JUDGMENT
PLEADINGS IN O.S.309/12 :-
The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 in O.S. 309/12 have filed
the suit against the defendants No.1 to 10 seeking
judgment and decree declaring that the alleged
agreement of sale deed allegedly executed by defendant
No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant N.8 and 9 is not
binding on the plaintiffs. Further be declared that
alleged registered sale transaction and sale deed dated
13.09.2009 allegedly executed by the defendants No.1
and 2 in favour of the defendants No.3 to 7 also not
6 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
binding on the plaintiffs. It is further sought for gift

deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of his
daughters i.e. defendants No.1 (a) to (c) be held valid to
the extent of 1/5th share only. It is sought for
preliminary decree for effecting the partition and
separate possession of the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties by
metes and bounds and each of the plaintiffs be put in
actual possession of the suit properties to the extent of
their 1/4th share each in suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule
properties. The preliminary decree be drawn for
effecting partition and separate possession of suit ‘C’
schedule properties by metes and bounds and each of
the plaintiffs be put in actual and physical possession of
the suit properties to the extent of their 3/10th share
each in suit ‘C’ schedule properties and the direction be
issued to hold inquiry to ascertain the past and future
mesne profits payable to the plaintiffs and also sought
for cost of the suit.
2. In O.S. No.309/ the description of the suit

properties is as under:
‘A’ SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
Immovable properties bearing CTS No.1300/C-2,

measuring 201 sq. yards and CTS No.1298, measuring
7 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
220 sq. yards respectively, situated adjacent to each

other situated at CTS Ward No.III, Moorusavirmath
Road, Harapanhalli oni, Hubli and the same are
bounded by East : CTS No.1299 & 1300/C-1, by West :
CTS No.1297/w, by North : road, by South : CTS
No.1301/A.
‘B’ SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
Properties situated in Krishnapur village Tq. Hubli.

1) Survey No. 97/4+5A Plot No.33 measuring 05 acres
01 guntas and the same are bounded by East : Road,
by West : Plot NO.32, 37, By North : Road, by South
: Plot No.39.
2) Survey No. 97/4+5A Plot No.39 measuring 06 acres

00 guntas and the same are bounded by East : Road,
by West : Plot No.38, by North : Plot NO.33, by
South : Plot No.40, 41.
‘C’ SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
The properties situated in Gokul road, Hubli.

The immoveable properties bearing CTS
No.4784/A1 measuring 08 acres and 33 guntas 7.8/9
square yards and CTS No.4805 measuring 01 acre 11
guntas 91.7/9 square yards which are adjoining to each
8 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
other. The above said properties together are bounded

as under:
East : CTS No.4804 and 4806
West : CTS No.4784A/2 and 4784/B
North : Gokul road,
South : CTS No.4929.
3. The genealogy of the plaintiffs and defendants

No.1 and 2 is as under:
TULAJANSA JITURI (propositus) – Dead

! Son
TUKARAMSA S/o TULAJANSA JITURI dead(6.2.2005)
!
SMT. AMBUBAI TUKARAMSA JITURI (wife) dead 16.01.2012
!
! ! ! !
Suresh Jayachand Snehalatha A Jayashree
T Jituri T Jituri Kabadi R.Burbure
Deft.1 Deft. No.2 Plaintiff No.1 Plaintiff No.2
4. As per the plaint averments the plaintiffs

No.1 and 2 are the married daughters of late Sri.
Tukaramsa Jituri and Late Smt. Ambubai Jituri. The
defendants No.1 and 2 are the sons of Late Tukaramsa
9 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
and Smt. Ambubai W/o Tukaramsa Jituri and rest of

the defendants are non family members.
5. The original suit properties held by the

propositus Sri. Jituri who acquired the title and
possession over the suit ‘A’ schedule properties in oral
partition effected in 1931 himself and his brother
Krishnasa and its certified copy of mutation extract of
CTS No.1298 and CTS No.1300/C2 of Hubli are
produced.
6. The properties in ‘B’ schedule were the self-

acquired properties of Tukaramsa Jituri and after his
death the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 have
inherited in equal shares in the ‘B’ Schedule properties
and record of rights are produced. The mother of the
plaintiffs Smt. Ambubai died on 16.01.2012 and
thereafter the defendants No.1 and 2 have without
consent of the plaintiffs, got their names mutated in
respect of Sl. No.1 and 2 of ‘B’ schedule properties
illegally by claiming that they are the only legal heirs of
Late Sri. Tukaramsa and Late Sri. Ambubai Jituri vide
M.R. No. H486/11-12 which copies are produced, the
said entries is without notice to the plaintiffs who came
to know about it in the month of May 2012.
10 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
7. In respect of ‘C’ schedule properties, the

father of the plaintiffs acquired the title and possession
over the property bearing CTS No.4784 vide registered
sale deed dated 12.6.1974 which copies produced and it
was at the time of purchase bearing Sy.No.6/1 B/1 and
6/4B+4C/1 and later on CTS No.4784 is numbered.
Originally the property bearing CTS No.4784/A1 was
part of CTS No.4784. The father of the plaintiffs during
his life time executed two registered sale deeds
alienating some portion of CTS No.4784 and later
subsequent to the sub division of properties, the portion
retained by father of the plaintiffs is numbered as
4784/A1. Hence the said property is self-acquired
property of father of the plaintiffs and the defendants
No.1.
8. In ‘C’’ schedule properties the property

bearing CTS No.4805 is also the self-acquired property
of the father of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 as
he purchased the same and the copies of CTS extracts
of ‘C’ suit schedule properties are present in the suit.
The father of the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 and
2 died intestate on 6.02.2005 leaving behind him his
wife Smt. Ambubai, present plaintiffs and defendants
No.1 and 2 as Class-I heirs in respect of both the
moveable and immovable properties. After his death,
11 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
the defendants No.1 and 2 have suppressing of these

facts got their names only entered illegally by filing the
application to the City Survey Department on
7.10.2005. The said illegal entries not binding on the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs came to know about this fact
only when obtained the records from the City Survey on
24.07.2012. The plaintiffs have 1/5th share each in suit
schedule properties.
9. In the plaint further averred that the

plaintiffs mother Smt. Ambubai has executed the
registered gift deed 6.1.2011 in respect of ‘C’ schedule
property in favour of the plaintiffs. However the mother
of the plaintiff has only 1/5th share in ‘C’ schedule
properties at the time of said gift and hence the gift
deed is valid only to the extent of 1/5th share of Smt.
Ambubai. The defendant No.1 taking undue advantage
his name entered in the city survey extract has
executed the registered gift deed in favour of his only
two daughters on 23.4.2012 and gifted 1/3rd share in
‘C’ schedule properties though gift deed is valid only to
the extent of 1/5th share for which he is entitled.
10. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 till

death of their father and mother lived as joint owners,
though the plaintiffs are married and living in their
12 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
respective matrimonial homes. Hence the plaintiffs and

defendants No.1 and 2 are joint family members and co-
owners. The father of the plaintiff Tukaramsa made
some unregistered family arrangement in respect of suit
scheduled properties in the year 1968 at no point of
time there was no registered arrangement for partition
of suit properties. Hence the plaintiffs are in joint
possession of the suit properties.
11. In the plaint it is further averred that there is

no registered arrangement taken place in respect of ‘C’
schedule properties whereas in the year 1980 and 1983
the father and mother of the plaintiffs and defendants
No.1 and 2 gave an application to the City Survey
Department in respect of unregistered family
arrangement of the year 1968 to enter their names and
hence it was for collateral purpose. The said entries are
illegal and without knowledge of plaintiffs. The said
entries do not create any right, title or interest in favour
of the defendants No.1 and 2 as the Tukaramsa Jituri
was absolute owner of suit ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule
properties.
12. It is further averred in the plaint that the

mother of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 has
died intestate on 16.01.2012 leaving behind the
13 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 2 as Class-I heir and

accordingly they have got 1/4th share each in the suit
‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties and in respect of ‘C’
schedule properties the plaintiffs have 1/5th share each
after the demise of their father. It is further averred
that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 entitled for 1/5th share
each by way of gift deed in respect of ‘C’ schedule
properties. Hence the plaintiffs are totally entitled to
3/5th share in the ‘C’ schedule properties. The plaintiffs
have came to know about O.S. No.244/2010 filed by the
defendants No.8 and 9 for specific performance of
agreement of sale dated 13.12.2009 in respect of ‘A’
schedule properties only when they received the
summons. After received the said summons the
plaintiffs came to know that the defendants No.1 and 2
have without consent of the plaintiffs colluded with the
Revenue Authorities and got their names mutated in
CTS records of suit schedule ‘A’ properties. The revenue
entries dated 6.3.1968 is not based on valid registered
document and do not confer exclusive title in favour of
defendants No.1 and 2. The sale of ‘A’ property by the
defendants No.1 and 2 is without knowledge of the
plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants No.3 to 7 for
inadequate consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/- executed
registered sale deed on 30.09.2010 and further without
validity sale agreement in favour of defendants No.8 and
14 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
9 executed by the defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of

‘A’ schedule property for consideration Rs.2,35,00,000/-
on 13.12.2009 is without consent of the plaintiffs and
thereby it is not binding on the plaintiffs.
13. As per the plaint, it is further case of the

plaintiffs that the defendants No.3 to 7 have not
acquired any title as per the sale deed dated 30.09.2010
as the plaintiffs and their mother have not consented
for the same. Further the defendants No.1 and 2 have
by playing mischief with the plaintiffs after the death of
plaintiffs’ mother, created anti-dated, forged agreement
of sale dated 7.4.2009 by colluding with their relative
Sri. Shyam Zartarghar, Eureka Builders, Hubli who has
filed O.S. No.120/2012 in respect of plaintiffs mother
Smt. Ambubai share in ‘C’ schedule properties on the
basis of bogus and fabricated sale agreement. Hence
the said suit is liable to be dismissed. As per the plaint
averments it is further said that in O.S. No.244/10
before the Hon’ble First Addl. Senior Civil Judge court
at Hubli, the present plaintiffs have appeared as
defendants No.8 and 9 through their counsel and
seriously contested the suit by filing written statement,
counter claim on 23.2.2011 and the said court by its
order dated 19.7.2011 executed counter claim of the
plaintiffs who were defendants No.8 and 9 in the said
15 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
suit, by observing that the defendants No.8 and 9 are at

liberty to take necessary steps in a separate suit or
proceedings to get adjudicate their right if any. The
defendants have unnecessarily raised the loan over the
suit properties without consent of the plaintiffs and the
defendants No.1 and 2 have not shared the income of
the suit properties though the plaintiffs are in joint
possession. The defendants No.1 and 2 are carrying on
business like Gokul Garden(Kalyan mantap), Picnic
Paradise Bar and Restaurant, Gokul Electronic Weigh
Bridge and Ambana Cement products in ‘C’ schedule
properties without consent of the plaintiffs. The cause
of action to the suit arose in the month of August 2012
when the demand for plaintiffs shares asked. On these
grounds the plaintiffs have paid court fee of Rs.200/- as
per Sec. 35(2) Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation
Act and valued the plaintiffs share for
Rs.60,00,00,000/-. On these grounds the plaintiffs
prays to decree the suit as prayed for.
14. After service of summons, the defendants

No.1, 1(a), (b), (c) and defendants No.2 appeared
through Sri. R.T. Khode, Adv. The defendants No.3 to 6
have appeared through Sri. R.S. Bargundi, Advocate,
the defendant No.7 appeared through Sri. S.B.
Hiremath, Adv. the defendants No.8 and 9 have
16 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
appeared through Sri. R.T. Hebbar, Adv. and the

defendant No.10 appeared through Sri. S.V. Patil, Adv.
The defendants No.1, 1(a), (b), (c) and defendant No.2
have filed common written statement, the defendants
No.3 to 6 have filed common written statement, the
defendant No.7 has filed the written statement but
remaining all the defendants have not filed their written
statements.
15. The defendant No.1 has died and his L.Rs.

defendants No.1(a), (b) and (c) have continued the W.S.
filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 and they have denied
the suit of the plaintiffs as vexatious and frivolous and
description of ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are not
correct. They admitted the genealogy furnished by the
plaintiffs. It is said that Smt. Ambubai and their sons
defendants No.1 and 2 lived together during the life time
of Tukaramsa Jituri and Smt. Ambubai even after the
death of Ambubai in the year 2012 the defendants No.1
and 2 were residing in one house.
16. The defendants No.1 and 2 partly admits the

contentions of plaint para 5 and said that after the
marriage of plaintiffs, they became the members of the
families of their respective husband and ceased to be
the family members of defendants No.1 and 2 and their
17 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
parents. Tukaramsa Jituri inherited schedule ‘A’

properties from his father by virtue of family partition in
the year 1931 and with the help of said property he
carried on business and from its income acquired the
other properties from time to time and hence all the
properties treated as joint family properties comprising
himself, his sons and wife. The properties purchased in
the name of Tukaramsa for the benefit of joint family
but not in his name being eldest male brother. The
Tukaramsa has raised the loans as against the security
of properties held in his name for the benefit of joint
family and he was carrying several business and where
in the partnership, only his family members, no
strangers were admitted as partners in respect of ‘B’
and ‘C’ schedule joint family properties. On 17.7.1974
as memorandum of partition effected by the Tukaramsa
and accordingly mutation were effected in the name of
different shares and the relevant records were made and
hence at the time of Tukaramsa’s death, there was no
existence of joint family. The properties retained by
Tukramsa for his share in the family partition were
entered in the names of his wife Ambubai and two sons
after his death. The plaintiffs had no interest in
claiming share in these properties and gave their
consent for entering the names of only said three
persons in the revenue records and accordingly the
18 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
names of Ambubai and defendants No.1 and 2 were

entered as persons holding 1/3rd share each and
accordingly the partition effected during the life time of
Tukaramsa has been accepted and acted upon. The
Karnataka Urban Ceiling Regulation Act, declaration
were filed by the said Tukaramsa, Ambubai and
defendants No.1 and 2 separately in respect of their
shares in the suit schedule properties and accordingly
they have got an order from the said competent
authority and further the plaintiffs did not raise any
objections from 1974 and plaintiffs have no right to
question the earlier partition effected by Tukaramsa in
the position as head of family, and said partition has
been executed and acted upon from the year 1974. In
the written statement of defendants No.1 and 2, it is
further said about 1/3rd share property gifted by Smt.
Ambubai and even the defendants No.1 and 2 arehaving
1/3rd share each executed by Ambubai hence the
plaintiffs now cannot claim lesser share than 1/3rd
share of Smt. Ambubai. Smt. Ambubai was not
physically and mentally fit in the month of January
2011 to take decision and execute the gift deed and
further she was operated in Diwakar Orthopedic
Hospital, Hubli on 21.7.2010 and also correct the
fractures and also advised to take complete bed rest for
about 6 months and again medical examination on
19 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
22.10.2010 in the same hospital and advised further six

moths complete bed rest and thereafter discharged her,
the medical expenditures was attended by the
defendants No.1 and 2 with whom Ambubai was stayed
and she never stayed with her daughters who are the
plaintiffs and hence alleged gift deed is concocted and
created in the name of plaintiffs No.1 and 2.
17. The plaintiffs have played mischief by giving

application dated 05.01.2011 to the Sub-Registrar,
Hubli with medical certificate of their mother Ambubai
by giving plaintiff No.2 address, house No.27, Central
Excise Colony, Gokul road, Hubli and accordingly the
gift deed was on 6.1.2011 at 5.40 p.m. at House No.37,
Apoorva Nagar, Gokul Raod, Hubli was presented for
registration of gift deed. Smt. Ambubai was not in a
position to make signature due to her trembling hands.
The said address at Apoorva Nagar is of plaintiff No.1
and hence it is clear that the Sub-Registrar are not
verified the address and Smt. Ambubai did not appear
before him as photograph affixed on the document on
the said date. Smt. Ambubai has not put her signature
in the presence of Sub-Registrar. Therefore the plaintiffs
have managed to obtain the thumb impression of
Ambubai utilized it to create alleged gift deed. As per
plaintiff, further made correction gift deed on 25.5.2011
20 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
before the Sub-Registrar at address of plaintiff No.1

where the Sub-Registrar allegedly came there on the
ground that the Ambubai was under ill-health and
under bed-rest and hence it is also created document.
18. Defendants No.1 and 2 have in written

statement further averred that the gift deed and
corrected gift deed are created and even Smt. Ambubai
did not put her signature in the presence of attesting
witnesses and thereby Smt. Ambubai never parted with
the possession of property to the plaintiffs. It is further
denied that Smt. Ambubai has not entered into any sort
of agreement and not created any encumbrances on the
property. If at all it is assumed that Smt. Ambubai had
1/3rd share as per gift deed then after the death of
Tukaramsa, all the suit properties were held by Smt.
Ambubai and defendants No.1 and 2 to the extent of
1/3rd share each. Smt. Ambubai and defendants No.1
and 2 have enjoyed the properties and created
encumbrances and also spent money in payment of
taxes, carrying out repairs and maintenance work in
various buildings whereas the plaintiffs have not
disclosed any liabilities of the family on the suit
properties after the death of their father.
21 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
19. D.w.1 and 2 have further taken up the

contention that though the CTS No.4784 measuring 01
acres 03.7 guntas along with buildings and structures
thereon or leased out to M/s Ambana Cement Products,
Hubli but the said tenant is not impleaded as a party
and hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties as the Ambubai had full faith and confidence on
her sons who are the defendants No.1 and 2, hence she
had executed general power of attorney appointing them
as her power of attorney dated 02.08.2007 and it is
never revoked during her life time and from the deed of
partnership executed between Tukaramsa Tuljansaa
Jituri and defendants No.1 and 2, it is clear that the
business were carried on in partnership but not a joint
family concern and the shares of the partners were
defined. The records of partnership firm shows the
profits earned and utilized according to their
convenience. Tukaramsa and Ambubai and defendants
No.1 and 2 together leased out the property bearing CTS
No.4784, 4805 totally measuring 4622.54 sq. meters to
M/s. T.T. Tourism Private Ltd., and the said company is
in possession of the property. About this the plaintiffs
have not mentioned as to who are in actual possession
of these properties as the suit is after thought. The
defendant No.1 and 2 denies that CTS No.4805 property
was self-acquired property of the plaintiffs father
22 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
Tukaramsa. The plaintiffs have not been taken to

challenge the survivorship certificate in the name of
defendant No.1 and 2 after the death of Ambubai
recklessly as said in para No.11 of the plaint. The
deceased defendant No.1 has rightly gifted his 1/3rd
share in suit schedule ‘C’ properties in favour of his two
daughters and same is not questioned by plaintiffs. It
was not obligatory for the manager of the joint family to
effect the partition only through a registered deed of
partition in the year 1974 as the amended Act required
the partition to be either by a registered deed or by a
decree and hence it is prospective in nature but not
retrospective. Therefore the partition affected through
memorandum of partition and it is false that till the
death of Tukaramsa, he was the absolute owner of the
schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties.
20. The defendants No1. and 2 have further

taken up the contention that after the death of Smt.
Ambubai on 16.1.2012 her share would be inherited by
the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and therefore
each one of them would get 1/4th share in 1/3rd share
of Smt. Ambubai. It is absolutely false that in ‘C’
schedule property plaintiffs would be entitled to 1/5th
share after the death of their father. It is further taken
up the contention that the plaintiffs have made wrong
23 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
calculation of shares of plaintiffs and hence even they

are not entitled to 3/5th share in ‘C’ schedule properties.
21. The city survey entries effected in the year

1968 are legal and valid and not required registration of
document and further the amendment of the year 2005
is in nature.
22. D.w.1 and 2 further denies that the ‘A’

schedule properties sold to the defendants No.3 to 7 is
for grossly inadequate consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/-
on 30.09.2010. It is further denied that the agreement
of sale entered into by the defendant No.1 and 2 with
the defendants No.8 and 9 in respect of ‘A’ schedule
property for Rs.2,35,00,000/- on 13.12.2009 is illegal.
It is taken up the contention that the said sale
transactions are for valid consideration. The plaintiffs
are bound by the agreement of sale entered with the
defendants No.8 and 9 who filed O.S. No.120/12 for
specific performance of contract of sale. As no cause of
action to file the present suit and further the valuation
of the suit properties is not made properly and court fee
paid is incorrect as plaintiffs are born prior to coming
into force of Hindu Succession Act 1956 as the plaintiffs
No.1 born on 30.03.1949 and plaintiff No.2 born on
24 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
27.3.2051, hence suit is liable to be dismissed with cost

of Rs.50,000/- each.
23. The defendants No.3 to 6 have also filed the

written statement stating that the plaintiffs have filed
the suit contrary to the provision of Hindu Succession
Act 1956 and Hindu succession (Amendment) Act 1994
and Hindu Succession Act 1956 (Central Amendment
Act 2009). The defendants No.3 to 6 have taken the
contention that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by
principle of law of limitation. The plaintiffs shall have to
prove that the properties involved in the sale deed are
joint family ancestral properties. The defendants No.3 to
6 further averred in the written statement that the suit
‘A’ properties have been acquired by the propositus
Jituri in earlier partition between himself and
Krishnasa. The defendants No.3 to 6 do not know about
the ‘B’ and ‘C’ suit schedule properties are the joint
family properties as the defendants No.3 to 6 are not
concerned to those properties. The defendants No.3 to
6 further taken up the contentions that in the year
1968 itself the joint family of Tukaramsa was
terminated and by going through that each and every
aspect, the defendants No.3 to 6 have purchased the ‘A’
schedule properties on 30.9.2010 from the defendants
No.1 and 2 who are absolutely owner of ‘A’ schedule
25 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
properties. The defendants No.3 to 6 are not concerned

to the alleged gift deed in respect of ‘C’ suit schedule
properties in the name of daughters of defendant No.1
and hence the daughters of defendant No.1 are
necessary parties to the suit. It is contended that the
plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 2 and their mother
were joint family members till death of plaintiffs father
Tukaramsa. It is denied that at no point of time there
was family arrangement in the year 1967-68 and there
was no family properties partition. The defendants No.3
to 6 have further averred in the written statement that
the father of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 has
under the provision of Hindu Succession Act 1956 made
partition in the year 1967-68 and accordingly during
his life time the partition has been acted upon in the
year 1967-68 and it is well within the knowledge of the
plaintiffs from the year 1967-68 itself and in the said
partition the suit ‘A’ suit schedule properties false on
the defendants No.1 and 2 whose names mutated in the
property records in the year 1967 itself and hence now
the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of ‘A’ schedule
property is hopelessly barred by time. As the division of
properties could be effected by going Vardi or
arrangement in writing or even by oral partition then
there is no need of registered deed. The defendants
No.3 to 6 have further denied the averments of para
26 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
No.15, 16 and 17, 18 and 19 in respect of joint status,

share of the plaintiffs, nullity and sale deeds as false. It
is further taken up the contention that by verifying the
records from the year 1940 in respect of ‘A’ schedule
properties about the absolute daughter of the
defendants No.1 and 2, the defendants No.3 to 6 have
purchased the same as bona-fide purchaser for valuable
consideration. The defendants No.1 and 2 have by
expressing their willingness to sell the ‘A’ schedule
properties, executed agreement of sale dated
27.11.2006 and thereafter by receiving the entire
balance sale consideration executed regular registered
sale deed dated 30.09.2010 and handed over the
physical possession of said property and thereby the
defendants No.3 to 6 and the defendant No.7 have
become the owners in possession of ‘A’ schedule
properties. The defendants No.3 to 6 have further
denied as false averments of plaint para No. 19, 20 in
respect of sale consideration. It is further denied the
contention of plaint para 20, 21, 22 and 23 in respect of
sale deed dated 30.9.2010 as illegal and the plaintiffs
have any right in ‘A’ schedule property. The valuation of
suit property and court fee paid under Sec. 35 of the
Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act is
improper. It is further taken up the contention that the
plaintiffs are not entitled for share and reliefs in view of
27 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
the fact that the plaintiffs being the daughters of

propositus Tukaramsa have born prior to the date of
commencement of Hindu Succession Act 1956 and also
Karntaka Amendment to Hindu Secession Act
1956(1994) and Central Amendment to the said Act.
Therefore the plaintiffs claim is not at all maintainable
as the suit has been filed at the instigation of their
family members and the defendants No.8 and 9 by
targeting only these defendants No.3 to 6 for the
reasons best known to them. Therefore the plaintiffs
are liable to pay a compensatory cost of Rs. 25,000/- to
the defendants as per Sec. 35(A) of CPC. Therefore the
suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with compensatory
cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable to defendants No.3 to 6.
24. The defendants No.7 also filed the written

statement stating that the suit of the plaintiffs is
not maintainable either in law or facts and further
he has adopted the contentions of written
statement of defendants No.3 to 6. The defendants
No.7 has taken up the contention that he do not know
about the relationship of the plaintiffs with deceased
Tukaramsa and Smt. Ambubai. The defendant No.7
denies contentions of para 6, 7, 8 and 9. He denies the
Class-I legal heirship of the plaintiffs and defendants
No.1 and 2 with deceased Tukaramsa and Smt.
28 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
Ambubai. He denies that even after the marriage of the

plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are not joint family members in
possession of suit properties. As the plaintiffs have not
challenged the revenue entries effected in respect of
partition effected in the year 1967-68, hence
intentionally filed the present suit after the period of law
of limitation. He denies that plaintiffs had no
knowledge about execution of agreement of sale deed
dated 13.12.2009 executed by the defendants No.1 and
2 in favour of the defendants No.8 and 9 in respect of ‘A’
schedule property, the plaintiff came to know about it
when they received summons in O.S. No.244/2010.
The defendants No.7 denies that the sale deed dated
30.09.2010 for Rs.60,00,000/- executed by the
defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendants No.3 to 6
and further the agreement of sale deed dated
13.12.2009 executed by the defendant No.1 and 2 in
favour of defendants No.8 and 9 for Rs. 2,35,00,000/-
were without consent of the plaintiffs. He denies that
the said sale transactions are not binding on the
plaintiffs. He denies that the said documents are
created. He further taken up the contentions that there
is no cause of action to file the suit and further taken
up the contention that no proper court fee is paid. He
has further taken up the contention that at the time of
purchasing the property verified thoroughly in respect
29 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
of ‘A’ schedule property title of defendants No.1 and 2

and purchased the same as a bona-fide purchaser with
knowledge to the plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ mother.
Hence the defendants No.7 prays to dismiss the suit of
the plaintiffs with compensatory cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
with cost of the suit.
25. On the basis of the pleadings the following

issues are framed by predecessor in office.
ISSUES
1) Does the plaintiffs prove that
suit ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule
properties are the self-acquired
properties of late Tukaramsa T.
Jituri, the father of plaintiffs
and defendants No.1 and 2?

they have succeeded to suit
properties along with
defendants no.1 and 2 after the
death of their father and
mother?

they have acquired 1/5th share
in the suit ‘C’ schedule
properties covered by Gift deed
dated 06.01.2011 executed by
their mother Ambubai and
1/5th share each by way of
succession in the said suit ‘C’
schedule property?
30 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
4) Does the defendants No.1 and

2 prove that their mother has
not executed the gift deed dated
06.01.2011 and in the
alternative whether defendants
No.1 and 2 prove that plaintiffs
have acquired only 1/3rd share
in suit ‘C’ schedule properties
by virtue of Gift deed dated
6.10.2011 as contended in para
No.11 of the written statement?

2 prove that late Tukaramsa
had effected partition in the
family and same was reduced
into writing on 17.07.1974?

2 prove that partition effected
by Tukaramsa was acted upon?

2 prove that they inherited the
share held by their father in the
suit properties, along with their
mother Ambubai?

sale deed dated 30.09.2010
and agreement of sale dated
13.12.2009 are not binding on
them?

they inherited share in the suit
properties after the death of
their father and mother and are
they entitled to share as
claimed in the suit?
31 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12

2 prove that the plaintiffs are
not entitled to relief claimed in
the suit as they were born
before commencement of Hindu
Succession Act of 1956?

2 prove that the suit without
impleading tenants in
occupation of suit properties is
bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties?

2 prove validity of alleged
partition of 1967-68?
13) Does the defendants No.3 to 7

prove execution of agreement of
sale dated 27.11.2006 and sale
deed dated 30.09.2010 and
acquisition of valid title over
suit ‘A’ schedule property?
14) Whether the defendants proved

that court fee paid to the plaint
is inadequate?
15) To what order or decree the

parties are entitled to?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1) Whether the defendant No.10

proves that the Smt. Ambubai
Jituri executed an agreement of
sale dated 7.4.2009 in respect of
32 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
her undivided 1/3rd share in ‘C’

Schedule property in favour of
defendant No.10 as contended
in W.S. para 15(c)?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove

that, themselves and the
defendant No.1 and 2 have
constituted their joint family
and they are the joint family
members and suit schedule ‘A’
‘B’ and ‘C’ properties are joint
family properties as on the date
of suit?
3) Whether the defendants n’o’.3

‘to ‘’6 prove that the claim of the
plaintiffs for partition and
separate possession as claimed
in respect of property shown in
schedule ‘A’ is not maintainable
in view of the provisions of
Hindu Succession Act of 1956
(Amended Act No.34 of 2005) as
contended in para No.36 and 37
of their written statements?
4) Whether the defendants No.3 to

6 proves that the payment of the
court fee and the valuation
made out by the plaintiffs in
respect of their reliefs are
improper, incorrect and
inadequate one as contended in
para No.33 and 34 of their
written statement?
5) Whether defendants No.3 to 6

proves that, they are the
33 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
bonafide purchaser from

defendants No.1 and 2 for
valuable consideration in
purchasing the property shown
in schedule ‘A’ under a Register
sale deed dated 30.09.2010 as
contended in para No.26 of their
written statement?
6) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs

is barred by limitation?
26. In connection with the above said O.S.

No.309/2012, O.S. No.120/12 in connection with the
‘C’ schedule property has been filed and as the parties
and the properties in both the sides are one and the
same, O.S. No.120/12 is clubbed in O.S. No.309/2012
for common disposal.
27. Pleadings in O.S. No.120/12 :-
The plaintiff in this suit being the defendant No.10

in O.S. No.309/2012 has filed the suit against the
defendants seeking judgment and decree to direct the
defendants No.1 to 4 to execute the registered sale deed
for 1/3rd share property in suit property on the basis of
agreement of sale dated 7.4.2009 by receiving balance
sale consideration of amount of Rs. 9,70,000/- and also
to hand over actual and vacant possession of 1/3rd
share in the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.
34 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
28. As per the plaint averments the suit schedule

property comprised in CTS No.4784/A1 and CTS
No.4805 of CTS Ward No. Extension, measuring 8 acres
33 guntas 7.8/9 sq. yards and 1 acre 11 guntas 91.7/9
sq. yards respectively, which are adjoining each other
and are situated at Gokul road, Hubli and over all
boundaries of both the properties are as under:
East : CTS No.4804 & CTS No.4806
West : CTS No.4784/A2 & CTS No.4784/B
North : Gokul Road
South : CTS No.4929
29. The original Tukaramsa Jituri was the sole

owner of the suit properties and as he breathed his last
on 6.2.2005 then his wife Smt. Ambubai and sons
Suresh and Jayachand who are the defendants No.1
and 2 having undivided 1/3rd share each got the shares.
Smt. Ambubai being the eldest member of the family
and due to her old age and she could not utilized and
should not exploited her share in the suit properties
and also bound by duty to respect and reward her two
daughters who are the defendants No.3 and 4 intending
to sell her undivided 1/3rd share in the suit properties,
accordingly on sale negotiations agreed to sell her
undivided 1/3rd share for total sale consideration of Rs.
35 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
10,00,00,000/- and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the

same accordingly executed an agreement of sale dated
7.4.2009 by Smt. Ambubai in the presence of her sons
defendants No.1 and 2 and as her hands were shaky,
she has affixed her LTI (left thumb impression) on the
agreement of sale. The LTI has been endorsed by her
relative Rajesh M. Burbure and also received
Rs.10,000/- earnest money from the plaintiff. Smt.
Ambubai in need of money, also received Rs.
30,00,000/- from the plaintiff in the presence of her two
daughters who are defendants No.3 and 4 in the suit.
The remaining sale consideration was agreed to be paid
in installments and thereafter only the exact 1/3rd share
of the suit properties be actually and physically divided
by metes and bounds so that the plaintiff could start
their development and construction activities in the said
extent after a consensus regarding the sub division of
that 1/3rd share with the defendants No.1 to 4 only the
agreement of sale is executed. As the said Ambubai
died on 16.1.2012 leaving behind the defendants No.1
to 4 only and after that the plaintiff reminded the
defendants No.1 to 4 for division of 1/3rd property under
agreement of sale but the defendants gave evasive reply
and hence a doubt crept up and thereafter the plaintiff
has obtained the latest CTS extracts, mutation copies,
encumbrances certificate etc., pertaining to that
36 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
properties and came to know that a bogus registered gift

deed dated 6.1.2011 was executed by Smt. Ambubai in
order to dupe the plaintiffs.
30. The gift deed in the name of defendants No.3

is suspicious and fraudulent document on the ground
that it was executed by Smt. Ambubai by calling Sub-
Registrar to her residential house only. Smt. Ambubai
had received sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- on 27.10.2010 in
the presence of defendants No.1 and 2 and one Shankar
N. Pawar and Vishwanath R. Jartarghar by putting her
LTI endorsed by Rajesh M. Burbure, later the grand
daughter of Smt. Ambubai who is daughter of deceased
defendant No.1 was given in marriage to one Vinay S/o
Vishwanath Jartarghar on 25.2.2011. The gift deed has
been created even by keeping defendants No.1 and 2
and their relatives in dark. At any rate in law, the
defendants are bound to perform their part of contract
in question.
31. The plaintiff is always ready to pay the

balance sale consideration amount as per the
agreement of sale and the plaintiff ever ready and
willing to perform his part of contract but the
defendants have failed to perform their part of contract
and turned their deaf ears. The plaintiff was always
37 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
conscious of its obligations on its part and made

arrangements to dispose of some portion of the suit
properties to be developed by some selected prestigious
and potential people and on these grounds the plaintiff
constrained to file the suit for specific performance of
contract of sale dated 7.4.2009 and hand over the
actual and vacant possession of 1/3rd share and further
registered gift deed dated 6.1.2011 is sham, nominal,
illegal and obtained by way of playing fraud and it is not
binding upon the plaintiff in any manner and on these
grounds plaintiff prays to decree the suit as prayed for.
32. After the service of summons in O.S.

No.120/2012, the defendants No.1 and 2 have appeared
through Sri. R.T. Khode, Adv. and the defendants No.3
and 4 have appeared through Sri. S.A.Mullur/Sri. LDK.,
advocates. The defendants No.1 and 2 and also the
defendants No.3 and 4 filed their respective written
statement. The defendants No.1 and 2 who are the
sons of late Smt. Ambubai T. Jituri and brothers of
defendants No.3 and 4 admits the relationship. The
defendants No.1 and 2 admits the agreement of sale
and earnest money received by Smt. Ambubai in
connection with the suit property as said in the plaint.
They denies that defendants No.1 and 2 gave evasive
reply to the request of the plaintiff to execute the sale
38 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
deed. The defendants No.1 and 2 have taken up the

contention that the defendants No.3 and 4 have
fraudulently got created the gift deed in respect of 1/3rd
share of Smt. Ambubai though the said Ambubai was
not in a position to execute the gift deed either by
putting signature or mentally and moving physical
condition the LTI of Smt. Ambubai is created. By false
application given to the Sub-Registrar office, allegedly
called the Sub-registrar to the house No.27, Central
Excise Colony, Gokul road, Hubli which is address of
defendants No.4 the gift deed shows the address at
House No.37, Apoorva Nagar, Gokul road, Hubli
actually the said gift deed was not executed by Smt.
Ambubai in the presence of Sub-Registrar and even did
not appear before the Sub-Registrar as appearing in the
photograph affixed on the alleged gift deed, it appears
that the LTI has been taken by making some false
representation and utilized it to create the alleged
registered gift deed. Further created correction of gift
deed on 25.2.2011showing that again Sub-Registrar
came to the residential house as per the application
given by Smt. Ambubai and ilhealth condition and not
in a position to put signature even the attesting
witnesses are created though the Ambubai never
appeared before the Sub-registrar and attesting
witnesses, hence gift deed is the out come of fraud. If
39 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
really late Smt. Ambubai intended to execute a gift deed

who have informed the same to the defendants No.1 and
2 and the same ought to have been registered in her
house at H.No.C-38/712, Apoorva Nagar, Gokul road,
and she should have taken signatures of defendants
No.1 and 2 therefore the gift deed is created one. The
entire suit property is in possession of defendant No.1
and 2 they are carrying business under the name and
style as T.T. Tourism Pvt. Ltd., company and these
defendants are the only two directors of the said
company, runs a business of Picnic paradise, bar and
restaurant, Kalyan Mantap etc., and also jointly
carrying a business under partnership known as
Ambana Cement Products and Gokul Electronic Weigh
Bridge etc., in exclusive management of defendants
No.1 and 2. The defendants No.1 and 2 have never
refused to perform their part of contract after the
demise of late Smt. Ambubai T. Jituri whereas the
plaintiff has unnecessarily dragged these defendants
before the court.
33. The defendants No.3 and 4 have in their

statement emphatically denied the plaint averments and
the averments of the written statements of defendants
No.1 and 2 except their contentions. The entire written
statement of the defendants No.3 and 4 are the plaint
40 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
averments in O.S. No.309/2012 in respect of undivided

1/3rd share of Smt. Ambubai in suit property and same
has been gifted in favour of the defendants No.3 and 4.
The defendants No.3 and 4 have categorically deny the
sale agreement of sale and receiving a sum of
Rs.30,10,000/- from the plaintiff by executing
agreement of sale. It is further denied the execution of
agreement of sale in the presence of witnesses as said in
the plaint. The agreement of sale is forged and
concocted colluding with the defendants No.1 and 2 the
plaintiff has no locus-standi to challenge the agreement
of sale and further the suit is bad for non joinder of
necessary parties when as per agreement of sale the
present plaintiff claimed alleged share in consideration
amount paid to the closed relatives of the defendants
No.1 and 2. Further the plaintiff and defendant No.1
has relationship as the younger daughter of defendant
No.1 is married to the son of elder brother of plaintiff.
Further Smt. Ambubai was in a fit state of mind and
able to put her signatures in Marathi as she put her
signature in Marathi. Even close transactions of
mortgage of property prior to the alleged document of
sale. Therefore the gift deed was not at the will of Smt.
Ambubai whereas the defendants No.1 and 2 and the
plaintiff has created the alleged agreement of sale by
having left thumb impression of Smt. Ambubai on some
41 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
other impression and created the agreement of sale

though the Ambubai able to put her signatures. Even
the defendants No.1 and 2 have executed the
agreement of sale in respect of CTS No.1300/C/2 and
CTS No.1298 Ward No.3 in favour of Sri Sheshamal
Bhandari and another on 13.12.2009 for which
Ambubai has put her signature in Marathi as a witness
and even the said agreement of sale is witnessed by the
wife of defendants No.1 and 2 also therefore on false
and concocted grounds colluded by the plaintiff and
defendants No.1 and 2 and their relatives and concocted
a story of agreement of sale alleged to have been
executed though it was not executed and never received
any earnest money though it was known to the plaintiff
that more than Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid by way of
cheque or D.D. Further there is no receipt for having
paid the money to Ambubai. Further after the death of
Smt. Ambubai, her sons who are defendants No.1 and 2
got their names mutated in respect of plot No.33 and 39
out of R.S.No.97/4+5A by submitting the application
and suppressing fact that the defendants No.3 and 4
being the sisters are alive. Further the defendants No.1
and 2 are in the habit of purchasing the blank stamp
papers to fabricate the anti dated documents and it is
learnt that on 25.3.2009 the plaintiff has purchased 20
42 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
stamp papers. On these grounds the defendants No.1

and 2 prays to dismiss the suit with cost.
34. On the basis of the pleadings the following

issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that
Ambubai executed sale
agreement dated 7.4.2009?
2) Whether the plaintiff is always

ready and willing to perform its
part of contract?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled

for relief of specific performance
of contract?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that

the gift deed registered in the
name of defendants No.3 and 4
dated 6.1.2011 is sham,
nominal and illegal document?
5) Whether the defendants No.3

and 4 proves that plaintiff and
defendant No.1 and 2 have
created a forged sale agreement?
6) Whether defendants no.3 and 4

prove that their mother
Ambubai executed gift deed on
6.1.2011?
43 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
35. As the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.

No.120/2012 is the ‘C’ property in O.S. No.309/-12 and
parties are also one and the same in material
particulars, O.S. No.120/2012 is clubbed in O.S.
No.309/2012 for common disposal by recording the
evidence in O.S. No.309/2012.
36. In support of the plaintiffs in O.S. No.309/-

2012, the plaintiff No.2 got examined herself as
P.w.1and examined one witness as P.w.2 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to P.37. On behalf of the defendants in
O.S. No.309/2012, the defendants No.6 is examined as
D.w.1, defendant No.2 is on his behalf and defendant
1(a) to (c) examined as D.w.2 and also examined one
ADLR as D.w.3 and got marked in all Ex.D.1 to D.16(a)
to (p). The plaintiff in O.S. No.120/2012 not adduced in
kind of evidence. The defendant No.7 to 10 have also
not adduced their any kind of evidence.
37. Heard the arguments of Sri.

L.D.Kulkarni/Anant R. Hegde advocates for the
plaintiffs in O.S. No.309/2012 and they have also filed
their written argument. Heard the arguments of Sri.
R.T.Khode, Advocate for the defendants No.1 and 2 who
have also filed the written argument. Heard the
argument of Sri.R.S. Baragundi Adv. for defendants
44 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
No.3 to 6 who have also filed the written argument. The

learned counsel for the defendants No.7 to 10 have not
adduced their arguments.
38. My findings to issues in O.S.309/12 are as

under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the Negative
Issue No.9 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.15 : As per the final order
Addl. Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Addl. Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
45 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
39. My findings to issues in O.S.120/2012 are

as under:
Issue No.7 : As per the final order
for the following:
:REASONS:
40. ISSUES No.1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12,
ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.2 AND 3 IN O.S.
No.309/2012,:- These issues are discussed together to
avoid repetition of facts as these are interlinked. The
plaintiffs No.1 and 2 in O.S. No.309/2012 have filed
this suit against the defendants No.1 to 10 for seeking
judgment and decree that the agreement of sale deed
dated 13.9.2009 allegedly executed by the defendants
No.1 and 2 in favour of the defendants No.8 and 9 in
respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property is not binding on
the plaintiffs and further the registered sale deed
30.09.2010 executed by the defendants No.1 and 2 in
favour of the defendants No.3 to 7 in respect of portion
of ‘A’ schedule property is to be declared as not binding
46 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
on the plaintiffs. It is further sought for declaration

that gift deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour
of his daughters is to be held valid to the extent of 1/5th
share only. It is further sought for preliminary decree
to effect the partition and separate possession by metes
and bounds and be put the plaintiffs in 1/4th share
each in ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. It is further
sought for preliminary decree to award total 3/10th
share each to the defendants No.1 and 2 by metes and
bounds and put them in actual possession in ‘C’
schedule properties. It is further sought mesne profits
with cost of the suit. Further in O.S. No.120/2012 the
plaintiff who is the defendant No.10 in O.S. 309/2012
has sought for specific performance of contract of sale
against the defendants No.1 to 4 to get execute the
1/3rd share property sale deed in ‘C’ schedule property
belonging to deceased Ambubai who executed the
agreement of sale dated 7.4.2009 and hand over actual
vacant possession as she being the mother of
defendants No.1 to 4 she had already received
Rs.30,10,000/- the remaining balance is
Rs.9,70,00,000/-, the plaintiffs also sought for
declaration that the registered gift deed executed in
favour of defendants No.3 and 4 on 6.1.2011 is null and
void and out come of fraud and not binding on the
plaintiff in respect of the suit property in O.S.
47 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
No.120/2012. The defendants No.3 and 4 are the

plaintiffs in O.S. No.309/2012 and in O.S. No.120/2012
they are the same defendants. It is further made clear
that the alleged suit property in O.S. No.120/2009 is
the 1/3rd property as per ‘C’ schedule property in O.S.
No.309/2012.
41. In O.S. No.309/2012 the defendants No.1

and 2 are the brothers of plaintiffs. As the defendant
No.1 died, during the pendency of the suit his
L.Rs./D1(a), (b) and (c) being wife and children are
brought on record. The defendants No.3 to 7 are the
alleged purchasers of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties.
The defendants No.8 and 9 are made as formal parties
and the defendant No.10 is the person who is the
plaintiff in O.S. No.120/2012.
42. As per the entire material on record, for the

purpose of better appreciation of the evidence the ranks
of the parties in O.S. No.309/2012 are considered all
along the judgment. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have as
per the plaint averments claims to be the joint family
members and coparceners and joint possessors of the
suit schedule ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties.
48 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
43. It is further case of the plaintiffs’ that suit ‘A’

schedule properties are the properties acquired by their
father Tukaramsa Jituri under oral partition between
him and his brother in the year 1931. It is
subsequently contended that out of ‘A’ schedule
properties, the CTS No.1298 measuring 220 Sq. yards is
self-acquired property of Tukaramsa and thereby the
property derived by him in oral partition between him
and his brothers was only 201 sq. yards consisting of
house. It is further contended that suit ‘B’ and ‘C’
schedule properties are self-acquired properties of
plaintiffs father Tukaramsa. It is further as per oral
and written argument also the plaintiffs have taken up
the contention that ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties are
the self-acquired property of Tukaramsa Jituri but the
defendants No.1 and 2 being his sons have falsely got
their names entered behind the back of the plaintiffs
and hence the plaintiffs have joint possession and right
in all the suit properties when Tukaramsa died intestate
on 6.1.2005. The father of the plaintiffs had during his
life time purchased the suit ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule
properties through sale deeds. It is further case of the
plaintiffs that the defendants No.1 and 2 being the
coparceners and living with the plaintiffs mother and
with the plaintiffs jointly, cunningly and for inadequate
consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- executed registered
49 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
sale deed dated 30.09.2010 illegally in favour of the

defendants No.3 to 7 under document No.15 and
further illegally and without knowledge of the plaintiffs
entered into an agreement of sale with defendants No.8
and 9 according to sell the ‘A’ schedule properties for
sale consideration of Rs.2,35,00,000/- which are not
binding on the plaintiffs. It is further case of the
plaintiffs that the defendants No.1 and 2 have created
agreement of sale in respect of ‘C’ schedule property
alleged to have been executed by Smt. Ambubai
plaintiffs’ mother on 7.4.2009 by colluding with their
relative one Sri. Shyam Jartarghar who filed the specific
performance suit in O.S. No.120/2012 in respect of
1/3rd share of Smt. Ambubai in ‘C’ schedule property.
As per the plaintiffs there is no any registered
arrangement of partition in respect of ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’
properties and moreover the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are
the joint family members as coparcener like defendants
No.1 and 2 the sons of Tukaramasa and Smt. Ambubai
and thereby the plaintiffs are the joint family members
entitled for partition and separate possession of their
share in the suit schedule ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties.
44. A careful perusal of the entire evidence of

P.w.1/P.w.2, the entire plaint averments and the
defendants aforesaid mentioned are reiterated to seek
50 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
partition and separate possession of plaintiffs shares by

metes and bounds. The P.w.1 has got marked Ex.P.1,
CTS extract property bearing No.1298, Ex.P.2 the
property bearing CTS No.1300/C2, RTC extract of plot
No.33 and 39 as per Ex.P.3 and 4, two other property
extract as per Ex.P.5 and 6, the true copy of letter
issued to enter the names of plaintiffs by reducing the
name of deceased Smt. Ambubai as per Ex.P.7, certified
copy of deed of conveyance of CTS property No.4784 as
per Ex.P8, CTS extract of property No.4784/A1 as per
Ex.P.9, mutation extract entry No.4805 as per Ex.P.10,
certified copy of survivorship certificate as per Ex.P.11,
certified copy of letter dated 17.10.2005 issued to the
CTS office as per Ex.P.12, certified copy of registered gift
deed dated 23.4.2012 marked as per Ex.P.13 subject to
objection, the original gift deed dated 6.1.2010 as per
Ex.P.14, rectified gift deed as per Ex.P.15, registered
sale deed as per Ex.P.16, certified copy of order sheet in
Misc. No.119/2012 as per Ex.P.17, certified copy of
application given to Public Relation Officer, Hubli as per
Ex.P.18. True copy of certificate issued by Divakar
Hospital as per Ex.P.19, copy of RTI application dated
25.5.2011 as per Ex.P.20, Divakar hospital medical
certificate as per Ex.P.21, certified copy of complaint in
O.S. No.29/2008 as per Ex.P.22, certified copy of plaint
in O.S. No.389/2001 as per Ex.P.23, certified copy of
51 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
sale deed dated 12.1.1962 as per Ex.P.24, certified copy

of sale deed dated 14.7.1966 as per Ex.P.25, certified
true copy of M.R. No.904 as per Ex.P.26, Samyukta
Karnataka Notices dated 4.8.200 and 7.8.2000 as per
Ex.P.27 and 28 respectively, information letter issued
by the SBM, Nehru branch, Hubli as per Ex.P.29,
certified copy of mortgage deed of Hubli KVG bank as on
5.6.2008 as per Ex.P.30, certified copy of mortgaged
deed dated 20.3.2009 of said bank as per Ex.P.31,
certified copy of Vakalath filed in O.S. No.121/2008 as
per Ex.P.32, the certified copy of Sale deed dated
13.09.2009 as per Ex.P.33, certified copy of letter
issued to enter the names of legal heirs after the death
of Smt. Ambubai as per Ex.P.34.
45. In the cross-examination P.w.1 denies suit ‘A’

schedule properties fallen to the share of her father in a
partition between him and his brother Krishnasa. P.w.1
in his cross-examination particularly denied that the ‘A’
schedule properties are given to the defendants No.1
and 2 by their father. P.w.1 denies that as her father
performed her marriage by making expenditures, for
that reason she cannot claim partition. Even in the
cross-examination made by the learned counsel for the
defendants No.3 to 7 and 10, the P.w.1 has said about
her right to get share in the joint family properties. In
52 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
the cross-examination of P.w.1, it is suggested by the

C.w.3 to 6 only that suit ‘A’ schedule properties are
fallen to the share of plaintiffs father in oral partition, it
is though admitted by the P.w.1 in the cross-
examination that CTS No.1298 Eastern side 1/2
portion, CTS No.1300 A and B entire property and
eastern side 1/2 portion of property No.1300/C in
favour of the deceased defendant No.1 and the western
1/2 portion of CTS No.1298 and western 1/2 portion of
CTS No.1300 C given to the defendant No.2 but said
that the same were given orally for convenience of the
family and there was no any registered partition. In the
cross-examination P.w.1 admits that in the said
properties the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 were
in possession in the year 1968.
46. It is admitted by the P.w.1 in the cross-

examination that as per Ex.D.1 sale deed a portion of
CTS No.1300 A property sold to one Surendrarao and
his name entered as per Ex.D.1 property extract and
the said property sold by the defendant No.1 and at that
time the defendant No.2 did not object for the same in
the year 1969. It is admitted that ‘C’ schedule property
has been acquired by Tukaramsa Jituri who is father of
the plaintiffs in the year 1974 and since 1974 many
entries run in ‘C’ schedule properties and now in the
53 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
said property there are Bar and Restaurant, Cement

Product Agency etc. It is further admitted that a portion
of ‘C’ schedule property in CTS No.4784 measuring 01
acres 12 guntas acquired for forming road by KSRTC.
It is further admitted that even some of other portion of
‘C’ schedule properties sold to one R.N. Shetty and
others and the purchasers are in possession. It is
further denied that for adequate rate prescribed as per
the Sub-Registrar office, the properties have been sold
by the defendant No.1 and 2. In the cross-examination
made by the defendants No.3 to 6 it is denied that the
defendants No.1 and 2 have as per their absolute right
sold ‘A’ schedule property. The P.w.1 admits that at the
time of sale of ‘A’ schedule property in favour of
defendants No.3 to 7 not objected but subsequently said
that the names of defendants No.1 and 2 for 1/3rd
portion of suit properties entered only for technical
purpose in the family. It is denied that the partition in
the year 1968 and 1974 in the family of Tukaramsa is
acted upon when since long plaintiffs have not claimed
anything in the suit property.
47. It is further said in the cross-examination of

P.w.1 that as their father was performing the activities
of the joint family, for that reason the plaintiff did not
object for the deeds prepared at the instance of
54 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
plaintiffs father. The P.w.1 denies that she has herself

sold her 1/3rd share in ‘C’ schedule property in favour of
defendant No.10. P.w.1 has further said that the
Ex.D.7 the family arrangement deed was prepared by
father of the plaintiffs for technical purpose of the
properties of the family and also for development of the
family properties and the signatures of father, mother
and brothers of P.w.1 are marked as per Ex.P.1(a), (b)
and (c) and (d). P.w.1 further said after filing of the suit
she came to know about the Ex.D.1 alleged family
arrangement deed on which the names of plaintiffs
mother and brothers are effected and the same are not
challenged. P.w.1 has further said that as per Ex.D.10
mutation ruled card in respect of ‘C’ schedule properties
the plaintiffs mother has 1/5th share.
48. The P.w.1 has in the cross-examination

denied that the plaintiffs mother has by receiving the
advance amount of Rs. 30,10,000/- executed agreement
of sale in respect of her share in ‘C’ schedule properties
in favour of defendant No.10 who is the plaintiff in O.S.
No.120/2012 and further denies that the defendant
No.10 has purchased the share of the plaintiffs mother
in ‘C’ schedule properties for the purpose of
construction of apartments, mahals etc.
55 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
49. Looking to the entire evidence of

D.w.1/defendant No.6, he has on behalf of all the
defendants No.3 to 6 given his evidence and it is
reiteration of his written statement in respect of
purchase of suit ‘A’ schedule properties purchased by
the defendants No.3 to 7 respectively as the suit ‘A’
schedule properties having common boundaries fallen
to the share of defendants No.1 and 2 and the
defendants No.1 and 2 executed sale deed dated
30.09.2010 in favour of defendants No.3 to 6 and
defendant No.7 and accordingly they have been in
possession of the suit property and got mutated their
names. In the evidence in examination in chief, D.w.1
has further said that as per partition in the year 1967-
68 only the defendants No.1 and 2 got their share as
per ‘A’ schedule properties and their names were
entered in the RTC extract and on that basis the
defendants No.3 to 7 have purchased ‘A’ schedule
properties for valuable consideration. It is further said
that in ‘A’ schedule property on 13.12.2009 the
defendants No.1 and 2 have got sale agreement
executed by the defendant No.1 and 2 for Rs.
2,35,00,000/- in favour of the defendants No.8 and 9
and said entire facts were within the knowledge of the
plaintiffs who had no possession and authority over the
suit property as they have born prior to 17.6.1956
56 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
Hindu Succession Act and their marriages performed

prior to Hindu Succession Act 1994.
50. In the cross-examination made by the

plaintiffs counsel, D.w.1 said that suit ‘A’ property is
not the ancestral property. He further said that the
plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 are the members of
one family and other parties to the suit are not the
family members of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1
and 2. In the cross-examination D.W.1 further said
that he has put his signature in the agreement of sale in
respect of ‘A’ schedule property and no signatures of the
plaintiffs were taken and admits that no amount was
given to the plaintiffs. Further in examination in chief
made by the defendants No.3 to 6, D.w.1 admits the
Ex.D.16 agreement of sale in respect of suit ‘A’
schedule property executed by the defendant No.1 and
2 and signatures of defendant No.1 and 2 are marked
as per Ex.P.16(a) and (b) respectively and further
identified the signatures of defendants No.3 to 7 as per
Ex.P.D.16(c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and also identified the
signatures of witnesses as per Ex.D.16(h), (i), (j), (k), (l),
(m), (n) and (o) respectively and also identified the
signatures of scribe as per Ex.P.16(p).
57 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
51. In the cross- examination made by the

learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the D.w.1 said that
except the defendants No.1, 2, their wives and son-in-
law in Ex.D.16, rest of the witnesses are not the
relatives.
52. As per the entire evidence of D.w.2/defendant

No.2 who is the brother of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 has
reiterated his entire written statement averments and
also as suggested in the cross-examination of P.w.1, he
claims that the defendants No.1 and 2 have as per
absolute share and right sold the ‘A’ schedule property
and further denied any kind of share of the plaintiffs in
the suit property as the suit properties partitioned in
the year 1968 and 1974 and the joint family came to an
end and the plaintiffs mother Smt. Ambubai also after
the death of Tukaramsa Jituri executed her 1/3rd share
right in ‘C’ schedule properties in favour of defendant
No.10 by receiving advance amount from the defendant
No.10 and executed agreement of sale.
53. D.w.2 has got marked one alleged partition

agreement deed dated 17.7.1974 and at the time of its
marking, the plaintiffs counsel had objected to mark it
and finally by hearing the contention of both the
parties, the said document has been marked as per
58 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
Ex.D.1 subject to objection to prove it and the

authenticity of the said document would be decided at
the time of disposing of the matter finally. In the cross-
examination of D.w.2 it comes out that he never taken
consent of the plaintiffs for any of the documents within
his knowledge in respect of the suit properties. It is
admitted that even there is no registered sale deed or
other registered documents in respect of suit properties
to get their names only entered in the properties. He
admits that there is no testamentary disposition like
‘Will’ execution by his parents and further there is no
document to show that the plaintiffs have come up their
shares in the suit properties. He admits that the Ex.P.7
and 12 are the same documents of application given to
Tahasildar to got survivorship certificate and admits
that the application was filed without mentioning the
names of plaintiffs. It is admitted that as per Ex.P.11
certificate of survivorship taken by leaving the plaintiffs.
It is admitted that during the life time of plaintiffs’
father suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties were the joint family
properties and no any registered documents in respect
of the said properties were executed during the life time
of plaintiffs father. He admits that no any signatures of
the plaintiffs taken to get the names of defendants No.1
and 2 entered to the suit properties. He admits several
litigations in O.S. No.389/2001 filed against him by his
59 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
parents and in the said suit he has represented the

children of deceased defendant No.1 and he has no
objection to Ex.P.23 plaint in the said suit. D.w.2
further admits that as per Ex.P.30 the plaintiffs mother
Smt. Ambubai stood as surety in the mortgage deed and
also admits signatures as per Ex.P30(a), (b) and (c) and
photograph of Ambubai in Ex.P.30. He further admits
the signatures of Smt. Ambubai in Ex.P.32 Vakalath
filed in O.S. No.389/2001. The D.w.2 admits that he
had filed O.S. No.28/2013 at Vacation Civil Court of
Dharwad against the plaintiffs and the children of
plaintiffs.
54. D.w.2 has in the cross-examination made by

the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has admitted that
in suit ‘A’ schedule property, in the year 1949, 1/2
portion of the property was purchased by his father as
per Ex.P.36 certified copy of registered sale deed. He
further admits that even after the death of his father
there was no partition effected between him and his
brother defendants No.1 and he do not know as to how
his grandfather’s economic status was. Further he do
not know whether or not the bank account, moveable
properties and shares came to his father from his
grandfather. He further said that his father had
support from father’s father. He further said that his
60 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
father was doing sari business by weaving but there are

no documents to show that business. He further
admits that Smt. Ambubai had no occasion to sell her
share for consideration according to the value list of
office of Sub-Registrar except the market value.
55. The D.w.2 has further said that after the

death of his father, he and his mother Smt. Ambubai
used to go to house of plaintiffs and having cordial
relationship. He further admits that except Ex.D.7
memo of partition, there is no any registered partition or
court decree in respect of the suit properties. He admits
that his father had main source of income from Ambana
cement industries as per except ‘C’ schedule property.
56. In the cross-examination made by the

defendants 3 to 6, the D.w.2 admits the signature of
him and defendant No.1 and wife and children in
respect of sale deed as per Ex.P.4 in respect of ‘A’
schedule properties. D.w.2 further admits their
signatures as per Ex.D.4(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and
further identified the signatures of purchasers as per
Ex.D.4 (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and further identified the
signatures of the witnesses as per Ex.D.4(l), (m) and (n).
He further admits that as per the agreement of sale it
was agreed to sell the property in favour of defendants
61 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
No.3 to 6 for Rs.60,00,000/-. He further admits the

Ex.D.16 agreement of sale executed by them on the
same day in favour of defendants No.3 to 6 in respect of
property in suit ‘A’ schedule property and also admitted
their signature in it.
57. D.w.3 who is the ADLR City Surveyor Officer,

Hubli has produced the certified copy of Waradi in
respect of property bearing CTS No.4784/A1, 4805
marked as per Ex.D.8, certified copy of its notice as per
Ex.P.9, certified copy of property mutation card of CTS
No.4784/A1 as per Ex.D.10 and CTS No.4805 certified
copy of property card as per Ex.D.11, true copy of
application given by Tukaramsa and three others in the
year 1975 as per Ex.D.12, true copy of property bearing
Survey No.169/1B/1 and Suvey No.169/4+4/1 RTCs as
per Ex.D.13 and 14 and the property register card
through copy of CTS property No.4805 as per Ex.D.15
and he further said that the entry dated 30.9.1983
entered as per Ex.D.10 not yet questioned till now by
anybody.
58. In the cross-examination made by the learned

counsel for the plaintiffs the D.w.3 admits that no
family partition deed was produced and no any
registered documents or court decree produced to effect
62 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
the partition on the basis of joint application to prepare

the property records.
59. As per the documents of defendants Ex.D.1
certified copy of Rule Card for CTS No.1300/A standing
in the name of plaintiffs grand-father, Ex.D.2 is the CTS
No.1300/B Mutation extract in the name of plaintiffs
grandfather, Ex.D.3 is the suit schedule ‘A’ property
claiming by the defendants No.3 to 6 and it is the
photograph, Ex.D.4 is the sale deed executed by the
deceased defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.3 to
6, Ex.D.5 to 6 are the Sub-Registrar office valuation
letters for value of city survey No. 1297/2, 1298 and
1300/C/2 for the year 2009-10 at Hubli, Ward No.3
properties Ex.D.7 is the alleged partition memorandum
of agreement marked subject to proof, Ex.D.8 attested
copy of letter issued by the ADLR city survey, Hubli
given by the defendants No.1 and 2 to entered their
names as per Ex.D.7. Ex.D.9 the Notice (Rule 65) of
City Survey Office, Hubli is the names of defendant No.1
and 2 and their mother Smt. Ambubai entered in
respect of ‘C’ schedule property as per Ex.D.7. Ex.D.10
is the Rule Card showing the name of Tukaramsa who
is the father of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2
entered in the year 1968 in respect of ‘C’ schedule
property, Ex.D.11 is also the Rule Card for the year
1968 in respect of CTS No.4805 suit ‘C’ property
63 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
entered in the names of defendant No.1 and 2 and their

father and mother only. Ex.D.12 is the true copy of
letter issued to City Survey office, Hubli to enter the
names of defendants No.1, 2 and their father and
mother only in respect of suit schedule ‘B’ property in
the suit and Ex.D.13 and 14 are the RTCs effected as
per Ex.P.12, Ex.D.15 is the names of defendants No.1
and 2 and their father and mother entered in respect of
suit schedule ‘A’ property bearing CTS No.4805 and
Ex.D.16 is the agreement of sale executed by the
defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendants No.3 to 6
in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property in which the
parties of said documents are marked as per Ex.P.16(a)
to (p) herein before already referred.
60. On careful perusal of the entire oral and

written argument of Sri. A.R. Hegde, Advocate for the
plaintiffs, it is the complete reiteration of the plaint
averments and whatever questions and suggestions put
and elicited the answers from the defendants in the
cross-examination in order to prove the plaintiffs
contention that the suit schedule properties are the
joint family properties and the plaintiffs have equal
share as that of their brothers defendant No.1 and 2 in
suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. Further to declare
that plaintiffs have got absolute 1/5th share of their
64 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
mother Sri. Ambubai who executed the gift deed in

respect of her absolute 1/5th share in ‘C’ property. I
have completely considered the oral and written
document filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in detail as per
which the plaintiffs are having equal share as that of
defendants No.1 and 2 by birth as coparceners when no
registered partition deed or court decree has taken place
as on 20.12.2004 and as per the provision of Sec.6 of
the Amendment Act 2005. The learned counsel for the
plaintiffs has in support of his detail argument
pertaining to all the issues framed in the suit in respect
of suit claim, he has relied the following rulings which
are as under: - 1) 2012 AIR Supreme Court 169 in the
case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another V/s.
Chakiri Yanadi and another, 2) 2014 AIR Bombay page
151 (Full Bench, Bombay High Court) in the case of
Badirnarayan Shankar Bhandari and others V/s.
Omprakash Shankar Bhandari), 3) 2011 AIR Kar page
78 in the case of Smt. Phulavati V/s. Prakash and
others), 4) 2007 AIR Supreme Court page 2191, in
the case of M/s. Kamakshi Builders V/s. M/s.
Ambedkar Educational Society and others, 5) 1999 AIR
Supreme Court page 2203 in the case of Brij Raj Singh
(dead) by L.Rs. and others V/s. Sewak Ram and
another, 6) 1951 AIR Supreme Court page 280 in the
case of Bishundeo Narain and another V/s. Seogeni Rai
65 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
and others, 7) 2005 AIR Karnataka page 426 (DB)

Ranganayakamma V/s. Prakash, 8) 1969 AIR Mysore
page 103 in the case Amir Bi and others V/s.
Committee of Management of Nilasandra Mosque,
Bangalore and another, 9) 1969 AIR S.C. page 106 in
the case of Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh and others,
V/s. Ramachandra Revgowda Sankh (dead) by his legal
representative and others, 10) 1993 ILR Karnataka
page 1182 in the caser of D.R. Hampalli V/s.
Renukappa, 11) 2003 AIR Karnataka page 3 in the
case of Riyaz Khan and others V/s. Modi Mohammed
Ismail and others, 12) 1990 AIR Karnataka page 149
in the case of T.K. Shrinivas Murti V/s. T. Sitharamaya,
13) 2001 AIR Karnataka page 384 in the case of B.S.
Malleshwappa V/s. K.B. Shivalingappa, 14) 2003(3)
KCCR page 1719 Parvati V/s. Venkatramana, 15)
2015(2) KCCR page 1437 in the case of Smt. Najamma
V/s. Smt. Akkaiahmma, 16) 2010 AIR Supreme Court
page 2807 in the case of Suhrid Singh @ Sardooi Singh
V/s. Randhir Singh and others, 17) 1989 ILR
Karnataka 1501 in the case of KEB V/s. Ashok Iron
Works Ltd., 18) 2000(6) KLJ page 275 in the case of
Ponnana V/s. K.P. Puwaiyya and 19) 2010(6) KLJ page
321 in the case of P.N. Sharat V/s. Ujwal and others.
66 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
61. On the other hand Sri. R.T. Khode, Adv. for

the defendants No.1 and 2 has also filed his written
argument in consonance with the evidence which he
adduced and the documents got marked and the
contentions taken in his written statement to deny the
coparcenary right of the plaintiffs who born prior to
1956 Hindu Succession Act and also on the ground that
also partition has taken place in the year 1968-69
during the life time of their father Tukaramsa and
accordingly the suit schedule ‘A’ property fallen to the
share of defendants No.1 and 2 during the life time of
their father only even as per the watni yadasti
agreement as per Ex.D.7. The defendants No.1 and 2
and their mother Smt. Ambubai had 1/3rd share and
even after death of said Smt. Ambubai, the defendant
No.1 and 2 got absolute right over the suit ‘A’ and ‘B’
schedule properties also and on the said authority the
deceased defendant No.1 whose L.Rs. defendant No.1(a),
(b), (c) on record have sold some portion of the property
in ‘A’ schedule and further taken up the contention that
during the life time of Smt. Ambubai her 1/3rd share in
‘C’ schedule property was agreed to be sold in favour of
defendant No.10 who filed O.S. No.120/2012 by
receiving earnest money and hence as the plaintiffs
married long back and residing in their husband’s
houses and thereby separated from the joint family,
67 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
they cannot claim any kind of share in the suit

property. The learned counsel for the defendants No.1
and 2 has placed reliance on the rulings reported in AIR
207 page 201 in the case of Chandrabhagabai Ganpati
Karwar (died) by L.Rs. V/s. Smbhaji Narhari Karwar
(dead) by L.Rs. in respect of taking any numbers of plea
by the defendants in the suit, Law Suit 139 in the case
of Varghese V/s State of Kerala in respect of when
document is marked it cannot be called in question
placed his reliance in respect of ExD.7 alleged Vatni
Yadast agreement relied by the defendant No.2. The
defendants No.1 and 2 have further relied the rulings
reported in 2006 SAR page 366 in the case of Joseph
Antony Lazarus (Dead) by L.Rs. V/s. A.J. Francis in
respect of genuine Will and its validity and further relied
the ruling reported in 2015 LawSuit (Kar) 1459 in the
case of Vasanth C Kerur and others V/s. B.Basavaraj;
B. Nagaraja, B. Giri Raj, Devamma, Kamalakshi in
respect of coparcenary right of the daughters when
already partition has taken place.
62. The learned counsel for the defendants No.3

to 7 has vehemently argued and also filed written
argument which is materially reiteration of whatever
contentions taken in their written statement and the
question and answers elicited during the course of
68 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
cross-examination of D.w.2 and also P.w.1 and

contended that the defendants No.3 to 6 and 7 have
purchased the suit schedule ‘A’ properties from the
defendants No.1 and 2 and further as the plaintiffs
were/are not joint family members or coparceners, and
the defendants No.3 to 6 and 7 cannot be called in
question, hence suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be
dismissed. The learned counsel for the defendants No.3
to 7 has placed reliance on the ruling reported in
2010(3) Kar L.J. 459 (D.B.) in the case of Pushpalatha
N.V. V/s. V. Padma and others, 2008(4) KCCR
2333(DB) in the case of Chidananda Ullal and H.N.
Nagamohan Das, JJ, AIR 2009 SC 2649 in the case of
G.Sekhar V/s. Geeta and others, ILR 2015 Kar 1054 in
the case of Puttalinganagouda @ Veeranagouda B. patil
by his L.Rs and others V/s. The Union of India and
others, 2011(9) Supreme Court Cases 788 in the case
of Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another V/s. Chakiri
Yanadi and another in connection with the coparcenary
rights and the rights of daughter of coparceners in
connection with the Hindu Succession (Amendment)
2005 as per Sec. 6(1) of Hindu Succession Act 1956.
63. The learned counsel for the defendants No.3

to 7 has further relied the ruling reported in 2001(2)
KCCR 1395 in the case of Smt. Hanumamma V/s. M.T.
69 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
Ramalingaiah and another in respect of once the

partition taken place, the joint Hindu status of the
coparcener is severed. ILR 1996 Kar. 1156 in the case
of Nagaraja Shetty V/s. Krishna as per which definite
intention to separate, carving out of shares, physical
division and separating or handing over or taking away
his share, totality of these factors leading to the
conclusion as to partition, 1980 LawSuit S.C.C.
(Kerala) page 102 in the case of Kalyani V/s.
Narayanan regarding actual division, 1979 SC 1980 in
the case of smt. Krishnabai Ganpatrao Deshmukh V/s.
Appasaheb Tuljaramrao Nimbalkar and others in
respect of declaration of intention to separate, ILR 1988
Karnataka, in the case of Raghunath Mallu Bastavade
V/s. Rama Basalinga Bastawade regarding intention of
parties dominating factor in determining rights in
properties, 1968 LawSuit SC 32 in the case of
Puttrangamma V/s. M.S. Ranganna in respect of
declaration of intention to separate, AIR 1997 SC 3767
in the case of Anil Kumar Mitra and others V/s.
Gajendra Nath Mitra and others in respect of
termination of joint family status and partition of joint
family properties in earlier suit, ILR 2000 Karnataka
3955 in the case of Chikke Gowda and another V/s.
L.Govinde Gouda in respect of unregistered partition
deed for collateral purpose for ascertaining the intention
70 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
of the coparceners to become divided in status, 2015 (2)

KCCR 1334 in the case of Prakash V/s. Timmamma
and others in respect of intention of coparcener to
divide his status, 2011(4) KCCR 2930 (BB) in the case
of Sri. Malipatil Basavarajappa V/s. Smt.
Sarvamangalamma and others in respect of
presumption of joint owners of family till the contrary is
shown and partition may be by oral agreement,
Karnataka Law Journal 9th February 1988 in the case
of Subbanna V/s Kamaiah and others in respect of
necessary parties to a share on partition, 2009(2)
KCCR 1206(DB) in the case of Sri. K. Madhava Raja
Nayak V/s. Sri. Kridhara Nayak and others, in respect
of observation pertaining to coparcenary property,
ancestral property and separate property - availability
for division in partition suit.
64. In view of the entire pleadings, oral evidence

and documentary evidence on record the provisions
under Sec.6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act comes
into picture in respect of acquiring coparcenary right
and succession in joint family property and in self-
acquired properties involved in the suit. It is material to
observe as material point that there is no registered
deed or document or decree of the court to show that
there is a partition of suit properties among the
71 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
defendants No.1, 2 who are brothers and their father

Tukaramsa and their mother Smt. Ambubai prior to
20th December 2004 and in this regard 2005 Hindu
Amendment Act is very clear. Further even the alleged
1968 and 1974 document as per Ex.D.7 relied by the
defendants No.1 and 2 are the unregistered documents.
As could be seen from the defendants documents, they
have in respect of alleged 1968 partition and their
names along with their parents Tukaramsa Jituri and
Ambubai Jituri entered in mutation records as per
Ex.D.10 etc., these entries are based on unregistered
documents. Further the said Ex.D.10 document shows
several financial transactions and loan raised for family
purpose, moreover such kind of names are entered on
the basis of mere applications to city survey office and
thereby they are simple entries based on Waradi made
by the father of the plaintiffs who during their father’s
life time, neutral in family property affairs as their
father was doing the family affairs. Moreover on careful
scrutiny of Ex.D.7 the alleged partition deed agreement
which is marked subject to proof on all aspects of
partition dispute and plaintiffs property rights question,
it simplly shows the entire ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule
properties in joint names and possession of defendants
No.1, 2 and their father and mother who are the
Tukaramasa Jituri and Smt. Ambubai Jituri and
72 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
though only 1/3rd share is shown in favour of

Tukaramsa and Smt. Ambubai and remaining 1/3rd
share each joint to the present defendants No.1 and 2
but the said alleged arrangement dated 17.7.1974 is an
unregistered family arrangement and even its terms of
settlements are happening on certain conditions in
respect of family properties, financial transactions and
development of the ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties. If at
all they wanted to get divide their share accordingly,
then what was the hurdle to get divide it without
conditions though admittedly the plaintiffs father
Tukaramsa was a business man with better financial
position. On careful perusal of the evidence of
defendant No.1 and 2 and their written statement they
have not made clear as to why the alleged Ex.D.7
document was written to give for finality after
happening of certain events as mentioned above.
Further though as per Ex.D.7 they had on 1.1.1968
only by way of partition got divided ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule
properties by mentioning several reasons of bank loans
etc., but why the said transactions were not registered
though the Tukaramsa was a big business man having
purchased and sold many properties even prior to it to
one Chawan and others under registered sale deeds and
the said purchasers are in possession of the respective
purchased properties. Therefore the entire averments of
73 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
the Ex.D.7 goes to show the fact of family arrangement

for technical purpose to deal with the family properties
as said by the P.w.1 in her evidence clearly before the
court. Therefore unregistered and simple writing on
plain paper Ex.D.7 is unbelievable document regarding
the alleged intention of the parties to have division and
to severe the members of joint family by having
partition. Therefore the entire material on record placed
by the defendants No.1 and 2 as per Ex.D.7 marked
subject to objection and its concocted mutation extract,
have not proved the case that during the life time of
plaintiffs father Tukaramsa the suit properties were
divided between Tukaramsa Smt. Ambubai and the
defendants No.1 and 2. Therefore whatever documents
relied by the defendants are on the basis of family
simple arrangement to deal with the properties of the
joint family containing the plaintiffs. Merely because
the plaintiffs are given in marriage, it does not mean
that they severed and put in cloud from claiming share
in joint family by birth right succession with the Hindu
Succession Amendment Act 2005 amendment to Sec.6
clearly said about entitlement of the rights of the
daughters of coparcenary right as that of share of the
sons. Therefore considering the entire contentions of
the learned counsels for plaintiffs and defendants and
also respective citations on this point, I rely upon the
74 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
observation made in ILR 2015 Kar 1054 in the case of

Puttalinganagouda @ Veeranagouda B. Patil by his L.Rs
and others V/s. The Union of India, AIR 2014
Bombay 151, 2011(9) SC case 788 in the case of
Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another V/s. Chakiri
Yanandi and another and also the law declared by the
Hon’ble Supreme court in respect of Sec. 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act amended by Act No.39 of 2005 in the
case of G.S. Shekhar, therefore on the date of death of
Tukaramasa Jituri, his daughters who are plaintiffs
No.1 and 2 gets rights to succeed to the shares as that
of sons and further they have right by birth in the
property of their father Tukarmasa Jituri irrespective of
their date of birth is prior to Hindu Succession Act
1956. Hence the entire contentions and evidence of the
plaintiffs in respect of share of plaintiffs in the suit
properties is substantiated with the cogent and oral
documentary evidence supported with the clear
proposition of law declared by the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the rulings
cited supra.
65. The plaintiffs have categorically denied that

their mother Smt. Ambubai executed the agreement of
sale in favour of the defendants No.10 in O.S.
No.309/2012 and plaintiff in O.S. No.120/2012 in
75 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
respect of 1/3rd share of Smt. Ambubai in city ‘C’

schedule property. The said defendant No.10 has not
adduced oral or documentary evidence in order to
substantiate his suit claim in O.S. No.120/2012.
Therefore in the absence of proof of such alleged
agreement of sale in favour of the defendant No.10 in
this suit/plaintiff in O.S. No.120/2012, it is held that
no such sale agreement dated 7.4.2009 has taken place
when even the plaintiffs are not parties to the said
document.
66. The learned counsel for the defendant No.3 to

7 has contended that the defendants No.1 and 2 have
executed the agreement of sale dated 27.11.2006 and
sale deed dated 30.09.2010 in respect of suit ‘A’
schedule property in their favour executed by defendant
No.1 and 2. They have also contended that there is
material oral and documentary evidence and hence the
plaintiffs cannot seek partition in the suit schedule ‘A’
properties. It is further said in the evidence of
defendants No.3 to 7 that they had on scrutiny of record
of rights purchased the ‘A’ schedule properties and
hence they are bonafide purchasers for valuable
consideration. As could be seen from the records, the
defendants No.3 to 7 are claiming their title on the basis
of registered sale deed and moreover the execution of
76 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
agreement of sale and execution of sale deed in respect

of ‘A’ schedule properties is admitted by the defendants
No.1 and 2 without any doubt, in such a circumstances
and in the absence of evidence of the plaintiffs to show
that no such valid transactions taken place and as per
entire evidence on record, no material doubts arise in
respect of said agreement of sale and sale deed in
respect of ‘A’ schedule property executed in the name of
defendants No.3 to 7 by defendants No.1 and 2, it is
held that the defendants No.3 to 7 have proved said sale
transactions and even proved that they have been in
possession of the said properties when no contrary
evidence is adduced and substantiated from the
plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. Therefore the
contentions of learned counsel for the defendants No.3
to 7 for claiming ‘A’ schedule properties is executed and
it is particularly observed that in case of partition of
suit properties, the ‘A’ schedule properties shall be
saddled to the share and division of the defendant
No.1/D1 L.Rs. and defendant No.2.
67. It is in view of the contentions of both the

sides and the material evidence on record in respect of
plaintiffs right to share and the sale agreements and the
sale deed referred above, it is held that the ‘A’ schedule
property valuation to the share of Tukaramsa under
77 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
oral partition has been developed by Tukaramsa by

having its support, he went on developing the financial
conditions of the family and also supported entries
which is proved as per the evidence on record and
gradually purchased ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties and
thereby in purchasing the ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule
properties there was nucleus of property derived from
his father and thereby the plaintiffs in the suit also
derived right by their birth in the suit properties and
even after the death of Tukaramsa Jituri they have got
right of succession to his family properties along with
the defendants No.1 and 2 and their mother Smt.
Ambubai who died in the year 2012 and it is made clear
that the Tukramsa Jituri died in the year 2005. It is
further in view of the above reasons of non-registration
of Ex.D.1 the alleged Vatni Yadast deed due uncertain
events which is observed to divide the family properties
without considering the entire family members
including the plaintiffs. It is the in valid partition in the
eye of law and the revenue entries and mutations
arising out of it are untenable without force of law. In
view of these reasons, it is held that the suit of the
plaintiffs for partition is maintainable in view of the
provisions of Hindu Succession Act 1956 to claim share
in the joint family properties by the plaintiffs. In view of
these reasons I answer the issue No.1 in the Affirmative,
78 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
Issue No.2 in the Affirmative, Issue No.3 partly in the

Affirmative, Issue No.5 in the Negative, Issue No.6 in the
Negative, Issue No.7 in the Negative, Issue No.9 partly
in the Affirmative, Issue No.10 in the Negative, Issue
No.11 in the Negative, Issue No.12 in the Negative and
Additional Issue No.2 in the Affirmative Additional Issue
No.3 in the Negative in O.S. No.309/2012.
68. ISSUE No. 4, 8, 13 and ADDITIONAL ISSUE

No. 1 and 5 in O.S. No.309/2012 and ISSUE No. 1 to
4, 5 and 6 in O.S. No.120/2012 :- These issues are
discussed together to avoid the repetition of facts as
these are interlinked. As per the plaint averments, it is
contention of the plaintiffs that their mother Smt.
Ambubai has executed a gift deed bequeathing her 1/3rd
share in ‘C’ schedule properties in favour of the
plaintiffs No.1 and 2 under registered gift deed dated
6.1.2011 but subsequently realizing that she has 1/5th
share in ‘C’ schedule properties, made correction deed
in favour of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and thereby the
plaintiffs have got absolute such 1/5th share together
along with their share in the other joint family
properties. The defendants have categorically denied
such execution of registered gift deed and rectification
deed executed by Smt. Ambubai in favour of plaintiffs
No.1 and 2 and it is created one. As could be seen from
79 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
the evidence of P.w.1, as the plaintiffs mother Smt.

Ambubai was not able to move due to ill-health, for that
reason the Sub-Registrar was called to the house of
Smt. Ambubai to the house at house No.37 Apoorva
Nagar, Gokul road, Hubli in respect of bequeathing of
her 1/3rd share in ‘C’ schedule property and thereafter
the rectification gift deed as per Ex.P.15 executed by
Smt. Ambubai in the house of plaintiff No.2 at house
No.27 Central Excise Colony, Gokul road, Hubli having
signature “CA. vÀÄ. fvÀÆj”
69. P.w.2 attesting witness has identified
signatures of Smt. Ambubai, Snehalatha Kabadi
(plaintiff No.1) and Jayashree (plaintiff No.2) Ex.P.14(b)
(c) (d) and Ex.P.15(b) (c) and (d) respectively. Even the
evidence of P.w.1/plaintiff No.2 as per evidence of
P.w.1/attesting witness forthcoming that as in Ex.P.15
house address was wrongly mentioned, for that reason
the rectification deed in respect of correct address of the
house and about 1/5th share instead of 1/3rd share of
Ambubai in ‘C’ schedule properties was executed.
Therefore it is forthcoming that the address mentioned
in Ex.P.14 is mentioned as the house at Apporva Nagar
and address of the house in Ex.P.15 rectification deed is
mentioned as house at Central Excise Colony, Gokul
road, Hubli and the defendants have further denied the
ill-health of Smt. Ambubai for not moving from the
80 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
house and no necessity of alleged registration of Ex.P.14

and 15 at house by summoning the Sub-registrar who
had verified the proper address mentioned in Ex.P.14
and 15 and thereby there is doubt in genuine execution
of Ex.P.14 and 15 rectified gift deed. It is the contention
of the defendant that the signatures of Ambubai on
Ex.P.14 and 15 are created behind the back of the
defendants No.1 and 2 though the Ambubai was
residing in the house of defendants No.1 and 2.
70. When the defendants have disputed the

genuine execution of gift deed in favour of the plaintiff
No.1 and 2 on the above said grounds, then the learned
counsel for the plaintiff has contended that the Ex.P.14
and 15 are the registered gift deed and its authenticity
cannot be questioned in view of interference of the
locality under the registered document. I have gone
through the citation relied by both the parties even on
the gift deed issue which citations are referred in the
suit. The D.w.2/defendant No.2 has in his written
statement and in oral evidence categorically denied the
execution of gift deed by Smt. Ambubai in favour of
plaintiffs No.1 and 2 when even the signatures of
defendants No.1 and 2 not taken as attesting witnesses
to the gift deeds. It is as per the entire material
evidence on record appears that there was no any kind
81 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
of ill-will between Smt. Ambubai and defendants No.1

and 2 who are her sons and with whom Smt. Ambubai
was residing since the time of her house Tukaramsa
Jituri. It is surprised to note that why the defendants
No.1 and 2 were not intimated about the intention of
Smt. Ambubai to execute the alleged execution deed in
favour of the defendants No.1 and 2 and moreover she
did keep the said defendants No.1 and 2 as attesting
witnesses to the gift deed the defendants No.1 and 2 are
also coparceners to the suit properties. In such
circumstances and when the D.w.2 /defendant No.2
has in his evidence in chief examination and in her
cross-examination suspected the genuine signature on
the gift deed, then also the plaintiffs have not taken
such measures to prove or to clarify such ambiguity by
adducing such kind of evidence supporting the
intention of Smt. Ambubai not to keep the defendants
No.1 and 2 present at the time of execution of gift
deeds. Further the material point that comes to the
mind of the court that why the evidence of doctors or
the evidence of Sub-registrar is not adduced if really
Smt. Ambubai was not in a position to walk out of the
house and to go to Sub-Registrar office with the help of
others. Therefore though in the application given to
Sub-Registrar calling him to come to the house to
register the gift deed executing by Smt. Ambubai then
82 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
the evidence of doctor and said Sub-registrar would

have played material role in connection with the alleged
ill-health of the Smt. Ambubai not able to move really
out of the house and she had intention to execute the
gift deed in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2. Further
when the signatures of Smt. Ambubai on Ex.P.14 and
15 gift deed and rectification deed are denied in the
written statement and also in the cross-examination of
D.w.2, then duty was casted on the plaintiffs to refer the
disputed and admitted signatures of Smt. Ambubai for
handwriting examination in order to prove her
signatures and hence such lacuna makes out a case of
doubt in respect of signatures of Smt. Ambubai on the
gift deed and also the execution of gift deed by
admitting the contents of gift deed and rectification deed
in the presence of Sub-Registrar at address mentioned
in the Ex.P.15 which is contrary to the place of
execution as mentioned in Ex.P.14 and which mistake
in right address in Ex.P.14 has been admitted by the
P.w.1 in her cross-examination. Even looking to the
evidence of P.w.2 attesting witness whose signatures are
marked as per Ex.P.14 and 15(b) also showing that
when he put his signature at that time Smt. Ambubai
and her two sons were not present and further said that
he had simply put his signature as he was called by the
plaintiff No.2. He further said that his sister’s marriage
83 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
has been performed with the son of plaintiff No.2. He

further said that the sub-registrar had come to the
house of plaintiff No.2 at 5.00 p.m. in the evening, he
further admits that the gift deed was printed at 10.45
a.m. as per Ex.P.14 and further he do not know prior to
that time his signatures were put on the same. He
further said that at the time of his presence at Sub-
Registrar office, one advocate by name Shashidar Desai
was also present. He denies that Ex.P.14 and 15 have
been forged and created in order to avoid the property
not to go in favour of Eureka builders.
71. As could be seen from the evidence of P.w.1

who is also the close relatives of the plaintiffs and put
his signature at Sub-Registrar office in the presence of
other witnesses, he did not put his signature in the
presence of executants at house of plaintiff No.2.
Further he had simply put his signature as per the say
of persons on behalf of the plaintiffs, therefore the
material doubtful circumstances regarding the genuine
signatures of Smt. Ambubai put on the gift deeds,
knowing its entire terms in the presence of Sub-register
at a particular house of the plaintiff No.1 and 2 are not
made clear. Moreover in view of doubt about the
circumstances for absence of defendants No.1 and 2 in
the absence of any ill-will between the Smt. Ambubai
84 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
and defendants No.1 and 2 also not made clear and

proved in any manner and hence the legality of the
contents of gift deeds are not proved with cogent and
corroborative evidence. Therefore the evidence of P.w.1
and 2 on the aspect of gift deed and rectified gift deed
are unbelievable and uncorroborative when many
circumstances of not examining the doctor about the
non moving condition of Smt. Ambubai for execution of
gift deed and rectification gift deed at a particular
address in the presence of Sub-Registrar by adducing
evidence of Sub-Registrar when the defendants made
out such doubtful circumstances, could certainly made
out case that the contents of gift deed and rectification
are not genuine and also not executed and proved in
accordance with law.
72. In respect of the sale deed dated 30.09.2010

executed by the defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of the
defendants No.3 to 6 in respect of ‘A’ schedule
properties under registered sale deed for valuable sale
consideration and on bonafide purchase of it, it is
already discussed in the aforesaid already answered
material issues pertaining to coparcenary rights of the
plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. It is further made
clear that already the defendants No.1 and 2 have
admitted that by receiving the sale consideration
85 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
executed sale deed in favour of the defendants No.3 to 7

in respect of ‘A’ schedule properties and even it is
corroborated with the defendants evidence that they are
in possession of ‘A’ schedule properties. Even the D.w.1
has further said that the said sale deed dated 30.9.2010
on the basis of agreement of sale dated 13.12.2009 in
respect of ‘A’ schedule properties in favour of
defendants No.3 to 7 is within the knowledge of
plaintiffs. In view of the said registered sale deed and in
view of fact that no unbelievable contradictory evidence
elicited from the mouth of D.Ws. 1 to 7, it is held that
the plaintiffs cannot deny and avoid such sale
transactions as the dividing of plaintiffs share according
to law in other suit schedule properties would meet the
ends of justice. Therefore the contention of learned
counsel for the plaintiffs on such grounds in favour of
the plaintiffs do not hold water when the defendants
No.3 to 7 have purchased the suit ‘A’ schedule
properties under registered sale deed when the plaintiffs
have clearly said even in other evidence that their father
Tukaramsa was taking care of the family property
matters and even the names of defendants No.1 and 2
and Smt. Ambubai were only entered to the suit
properties record. Further as the defendant No.3 to 6
have in their evidence categorically said that they had
verified the documents and purchased the suit ‘A’
86 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
schedule property and they are bonafide purchasers

gave consideration to the defendants No.1 and 2. It is
held that the defendants No.3 to 7 are the bonafide
purchasers of suit ‘A’ schedule properties under
agreement of sale dated 27.11.2006 and the sale deed
dated 30.09.2010. So far as regards the contention of
the plaintiff in O.S. No.120/2012 in respect of alleged
agreement of sale dated 7.4.2009 in respect of alleged
1/3rd share of Smt. Ambubai in suit schedule ‘C’
properties is concerned the said plaintiff/defendant
No.10 in O.S. No.309/12 also not adduced his evidence
and not at all produced that alleged agreement of sale
for total sale consideration of Rs. 10,00,10,000/- and
paid Rs.30,10,000/- as advance and there was balance
of Rs.9,70,00,000/- to be paid to Smt. Ambubai. In
such a circumstances even the defendants No.3 and 4
in that suit and the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 in O.S.
No.309/2012 denied the said sale consideration and
sale transactions. It is held that the plaintiff in O.S.
No.120/12 has completely failed to prove the alleged
agreement of sale, money transaction and execution of
sale agreement by Smt. Ambubai. Therefore in view of
these reasons I answer the issue No.4 in the Negative,
Issue No.8 in the Affirmative, Issue No.13 in the
Affirmative, Addl. Issue No.1 in the Negative and Addl.
issue No.5 in the Affirmative in O.S. No.309/2012 and I
87 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
answer the issue No.1 and 2 in the Negative, Issue No.4

to 6 pertaining to gift deed which is not proved to show
that Smt. Ambubai executed the gift deed hence these
issues are answered in the Affirmative.
73. ISSUE No.14 & ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.4 in

O.S. No.309/2012:- It is the contention of learned
counsel for the defendants that though the suit has
been filed for the reliefs of declaration, partition, and
mesne profits but the court fee has been valued for the
only relief of partition which is contrary to the provision
of Sec. 35 of Karnataka Fee and Suit Valuation Act
1958, in respect of the said contention the learned
counsel for the defendant No.3 to 6 has relied Sec.6 of
the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act 1958
regarding multifarious suits as per which where the suit
involves two or more distinct and different causes of
action and reliefs then the plaint shall be chargeable
with aggregate amount of the fees with which plaint
would be chargeable under Sec.6 of the Act Fee
separate suits were instituted in respect of the several
causes of action. The learned counsel for the
defendants No.3 to 6 has further relied the said section
in a suit for declaration of different transactions. It is
further relied Sec. 35 of the Court fee to make value on
market value of the suit properties with respect to the
88 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
share claimed and the court fee has to be paid on

advalurom basis. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs
relied the ruling reported in 2003(4) KLJ 289 in the case
of G. Baramappa V/s. Kenchappa and others and
further relied the ruling reported in 1991(2) KLJ 373 in
the case of Ningappa Karabasappa Shivanagutti V/s.
Amarappa Karabasappa Shivanagutti and others and as
per the said rulings it is observed that the court fee has
to be computed on the market value of share claimed by
the party seeking partition and further the question of
paying court fee determination will be within the
discretion of the court to entertain the suit in terms of
the plaint allegations and not with reference to
objections taken by the defendants. It is further relied
the ruling reported in 1989(1) in the case of Gopinath A.
V/s. K. Ramalingam and others decided on 2nd
November 1988 in the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka,
it is held that unless it is shown that the plaintiff is
excluded from such possession it cannot be said that
the plaintiff has to pay advalurom court fee under Sec.
35(1) of the Act.
74. Having perusal of the reliefs sought for in the

suit in O.S. 309/2012, it is mainly for the relief of
partition and separate possession of plaintiffs share in
the suit schedule properties and also sought for
89 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
declaration that the agreement of sale deed dated

30.09.2009 for declaration that the agreement of sale
deed dated 30.09.2009 allegedly executed by the
defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of defendants No.8 and
9 is not binding on the plaintiffs and further to declare
that the registered sale transaction and sale deed dated
30.09.2010 allegedly executed by the defendants No.1
and 2 in favour of the defendants No.3 to 7 not binding
on the plaintiff in respect of ‘A’ schedule properties. It
is further sought to declare that gift deed executed by
the defendant No.1 in favour of his daughters who are
now legal heirs on record to be held valid to the
extension 1/5th only. Having perusal of the entire said
reliefs for declaration on such documents, the plaintiffs
No.1 and 2 are not at all the parties to the said
documents and further not at all sought for cancellation
of those documents as null and avoid. In this context
the learned counsel for the defendants No.3 to 6 has
relied Sec. 6(3) and Sec. 24(b) of the Karnataka Court
Fee and Suit Valuation Act and also contended that the
suit properties ought to have been valued as per the
market value and advalurom court fee shall be paid by
the plaintiffs. On the other hand it is contended by the
learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the reliefs sought
for partition and separate possession is main relief and
rest are the ancillary relief and moreover plaintiffs are
90 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
not at all parties to the said documents and hence Sec.6

of the Court Fee Act regarding multifarious suits applies
to the suit and already court fee is paid and moreover if
court comes to the conclusion that the court fee has to
be paid on ancillary relief, the plaintiffs are ready to pay
the court fee.
75. Having perusal of the ruling relied by both

the sides and also considering the entire contentions of
both the sides in view of nature of the suit properties
and the facts that the plaintiffs are not seeking
declaratory relief to establish their rights in view of the
documents referred by them in the suit, I am of the
opinion of that the reliefs except the relief of partition
and separate possession of plaintiffs share are the
ancillary reliefs and the said ancillary reliefs having no
particular valuation to be made and according to the
market value already paid the court fee of Rs.200/- for
partition and separate possession is correct but for the
ancillary reliefs as per prayer ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ the valuation
of Rs.1000/- each shall be made and court fee of Rs.
25/- each makes the total Rs. 75/- shall be made good
by the plaintiffs. Therefore I find no grounds in the
contentions of learned counsel for the defendants No.1
to 7 for payment of advalurom court fee on the market
value of the suit properties. But the plaintiffs ought to
91 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
have valued the ancillary relief for value of Rs.1000/-

each and shall pay court fee of Rs. 25/- each.
Accepting the contentions of learned counsel for the
defendants regarding the court fee, it is held that the
additional court fee of Rs. 75/- along with fresh
valuation slip shall be furnished by the plaintiffs
counsel for drawal of decree in the suit. In view of these
reasons, I answer the issue No.14 in the Affirmative and
Additional issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
76. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.6 :- In O.S.

No.309/2012 the learned counsel for the defendants
have taken up the contention that the suit of the
plaintiffs for partition and separate possession is barred
by the limitation as in the year 1968 and 1974 only the
partition has taken place and the plaintiffs are not in
possession of the suit properties. On the other hand
the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that
as per evidence on record the suit properties are still the
joint family properties and the plaintiffs have got joint
possession and deemed joint right and share and
moreover in view of amendment of Hindu Succession
Act 2005 the plaintiffs being coparceners having share
by birth and moreover even after the death of their
father in the year 2005, the plaintiffs have got right of
succession and thereby still the cause of action to file
92 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
the suit survive and moreover as in the month of

August 2012, the plaintiffs came to know about the
illegal entry of names of defendants No.1 and 2 solely
in the suit ‘A’ properties and they have alienated the
suit ‘A’ schedule properties in favour of the defendants
No.1 to 7, hence the suit filed by the plaintiffs on
14.09.20012 is well within time. Having perusal of the
entire records and entire oral and documentary
evidence, it is absolutely true facts as contended by the
learned counsel for the plaintiffs as said above and
hence it is come to the conclusion that the defendants
have falsely taken up the contention that the suit is
barred by law of limitation. In view of these reasons, I
answer the issue No.6 in the Negative in O.S.
No.309/2012.
77. ISSUE No.15 IN O.S. No. 309/2012 AND

ISSUES No. 3 AND 7 IN O.S. No.120/2012 :- These
issues are discussed together to avoid the repetition of
facts as these are interlinked. As per the pleadings and
the entire evidence of both the sides, the father of
plaintiff No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 died on
6.2.2005 and thereafter their mother Smt. Ambubai
Jituri died on 16.1.2012, it is as per entire oral and
documentary evidence discussed supra held that suit
schedule ‘A’ ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties are the joint family
93 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
properties and the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the

coparceners to take share on par with their brothers
defendant No.1 and 2 by way of partition and separate
possession in the suit schedule properties by way of
Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 and also by
way of succession in view of death of their father
Tukaramsa Jituri who died on 6.2.2005 and on which
date the succession starts to run for partition of his suit
properties. In the suit schedule properties after the
death of Tukaramsa S/o Tuljansa Jituri the right to
take share of partition and separate possession accrues
to the plaintiff No.1, 2, through the deceased defendant
No.1 (defendants No.1 LRs on record entitled to share)
defendant No.2 and Smt. Ambubai for 1/5th share each.
Further as Smt. Ambubai being the mother of plaintiffs
No.1 and 2 and deceased defendants No.1 and the other
defendants No.2 died on 16.1.2012 by leaving her 1/5th
share in the suit schedule properties, hence again the
plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 entitled for 1/4th
share each out of 1/5th share in all the suit properties.
Therefore plaintiffs No.1, 2 and defendants No.1
represented through his L.Rs. together on record and
defendant No.2 entitled for partition and separate
possession of total 1/4th share each in all the the suit
properties.
94 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
78. As per the adjudication of issues made supra

regarding already made alienation ‘A’ schedule
properties in favour of the defendants No.3 to 7 by the
defendants No.1 and 2 only by receiving such
consideration under the registered sale deeds, and
accordingly the defendants No.3 to 7 are in possession
of suit schedule ‘A’ properties as bonafide purchasers,
the equitable share be adjusted to safeguard the
interest of the defendants No.3 to 7. Therefore the
shares of defendant No.1 represented through his L.Rs.
on record and also share of defendant No.2 shall be
made divide and shown in suit ‘A’ schedule property
only to avoid inconvenience in dividing the suit
properties for effecting the partition and separate
possession by metes and bounds to facilitate the
plaintiffs to get their share and also to make equities by
way of estimating the value of the properties to avoid
complications in dividing the properties. As the
plaintiffs in O.S. No.120/2012 has failed to prove his
suit for the relief of specific performance of contract of
sale, he is not entitled for any reliefs, hence the issue
No.3 in O.S. No.120/2012 is answered in the Negative.
In respect of issue No.15 in O.S. No.309/2012 regarding
the partition and separate possession and issue No.7 in
O.S. No.120/12 as discussed above, ordered
95 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
accordingly as per the final order. Hence I proceed to

pass the following:
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 in
O.S. No.309/2012 is hereby partly
decreed with cost as follows:
The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are along
with the defendants No.1 represented by
their L.Rs. on record together and the
other defendants No.2 are entitled for
1/4th share each equally by metes and
bounds and be put in possession of their
respective shares in the suit properties.
As the suit ‘A’ schedule properties
are sold by the defendants No.1 and 2 for
their own purpose in favour of the
defendants No.3 to 7 who are in
possession of the same, it shall be
bifurcated and divided by showing the
1/4th shares each of defendant No.1
represented through their L.Rs. together
and defendant No.2 particularly by way of
adjusting the equities in ‘A’ schedule
properties only.
The plaintiffs prayers in O.S.
No.309/2012 to declare that the sale
96 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
agreement and sale deeds executed by

the defendants No.1 and 2 in favour of
defendants No.3 to 7 are not binding are
dismissed as the same does not effect the
rights of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 to take
their respective shares in other suit
properties.
The plaintiffs shall furnish the
valuation slip for 3 distinct ancillary
reliefs making valuation of Rs.1000/-
each under Sec. 24(d) of Court Fee and
Suit Valuation Act and shall pay court fee
of Rs.25/- each making total of Rs.75/-
which is mandatory for drawal of
preliminary decree.
The suit of the plaintiff in O.S.
No.120/2012 is hereby dismissed with
cost.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
A copy of judgment shall be kept in
O.S. No.120/2012.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

the same is corrected and then pronounced by me in the
Open Court on this 15th day of September, 2015)
(S.N.Kalkani)
Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli.
97 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED BY PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1 : Jayashree W/o Ramesh Burbures
P.W.2 : Girish S/o Kishore Habib
2. LIST OF WITNESS8ES EXAMINED BY DEFENDANTS:

D.W.1 : Anand Basavaraj Kamatagi
D.W.2 : Jayachand Tukaramsa Jituri
D.W.3 : Shivakant Malakappa Jidagekar
3. LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY PLAINTIFF:

Ex.P.1 : Mutation entry No.1298,
Ex.P.2 : Rule Card of CTS No.1300/C2,
Ex.P.3 : RTC extract No.97/4+5A plot No.33
Ex.P.4 : RTC extract No.97/4+5A plot No.39
Ex.P.5 & 6 : -do-
Ex.P.7 : True copy of letter to Tahasildar
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of deed of conveyance
Ex.P.9 : Mutation Entry No. 4784/A1
Ex.P.10 : Mutation Entry No.4805
Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of survivorship certificate
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of letter dated 17.10.2005
Ex.P.13 : C/c of registered gift deed dated 23.4.2012
Ex.P.14 : Original gift deed dated 6.1.2010
Ex.P.14(a) to (d) : Signatures
Ex.P.15 : Rectified gift deed
Ex.P.15(a) to (d) : Signatures
Ex.P.16 : Registered sale deed
Ex.P.17 : C/c of order sheet in Misc. No.119/2012
Ex.P.18 : C/c of application given to Public Relation Officer
Ex.P.19 : True copy of certificate issued by Divakar Hospital
Ex.P.20 : Copy of RTI application dated 25.5.2011
Ex.P.21 : Divakar hospital medical certificate
Ex.P.22 : C/c of complaint in O.S. No.29/2008
Ex.P.23 : C/c of plaint in O.S. No.389/2001
Ex.P.24 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 12.1.1962
Ex.P.25 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 14.7.1966
Ex.P.26 : Certified true copy of M.R. No.904
98 O.S. No. 309/12 & O.S. No.120/12
Ex.P.27 & 28 : Samyukta Karnataka Notices

Ex.P.29 : Information letter issued by the SBM,
Ex.P.30 : Certified copy of mortgage deed
Ex.P.30(a) to (c) : Signatures
Ex.P.31 : C/c of mortgaged deed dated 20.3.2009
Ex.P.32 : C/c of Vakalath filed in O.S. No.121/2008
Ex.P.33 : C/c of Agreement of sale dated 13.09.2009
Ex.P.34 : C/c of letter issued to enter the names of LRs.
Ex.P.35 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.353/13
Ex.P.36 : C/c of Sale deed
Ex.P.37 : C/c of Sale deed in respect of ‘A’ property
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY DEFENDANTS:

Ex.D.1 : C/c of Rule Card for CTS No.1300/A
Ex.D.2 : CTS No.1300/B Mutation extract
Ex.D.3 : Photo graph of Schedule ‘A’ property
Ex.D.4 : C/ c of Sale Deed 30.09.2010
Ex.D.4(a) to (n) : Signatures
Ex.D.5 to 6 : Sub Registrar Office valuation letters
Ex.D.7 : Partition Memorandum of agreement
Ex.D.7(a) to (d) : Signatures
Ex.D.8 : Attested copy of letter issued by ADLR
Ex.D.9 : Notice (Rule 65) of City Survey Office, Hubli
Ex.D.10 : Rule Card showing the name of Tukaramasa
Ex.D.11 : Rule Card for the year 1968 of CTS No.4805
Ex.D.12 : True copy of letter issued City Survey office
Ex.D.13 and 14 : RTCs effected as per Ex.12
Ex.D.15 : CTS No.4805 in respect of suit ‘A’ property
Ex.D.16 : Agreement of Sale in respect of ‘A’ property
Ex.D.16(a) to (p) : Signatures
(S.N.Kalkani)
Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubli.

Os 309 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Os 309 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE COURT OF PRL.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC,

PRESENT : SRI. S.N.KALKANI, B.Com.,LL.M.

O.S. No.309/2012 clubbed with

PLAINTIFF/S : 1. Smt. Snehalata W/o Ambasa

(By Sri. L.D. Kulkarni/Anant R. Hegde,

1(a) Vijayalaxmi W/o Suresh Jituri

1(b) Aruna W/o Rajesh Burbure

1(c) Suvarna W/o Vinaya Jartarghar,

2. Jayachand S/o Tukaramsa Jituri

3. Nijaguneppa S/o: Rudrappa

4. Smt. Sulochana W/o Basavaraj

5. Vishwanath S/o Basavaraj

7. Basavaraj S/o Chennabasappa

8. Sheshmal S/o Tekchandji

9 Prakash S/o Premachandaji

Nature of suit : Partition and Separate

In O.S. No. 120/2012

PLAINTIFF/S : M/s. Eureka Builders,

R/o: H.No.9, Eureka Colony,

(By Sri. S.V. Patil, Adv.)

DEFENDANT/S : 1. Suresh S/o Tukarmsa Jituri

1(a) Vijayalaxmi W/o Suresh Jituri

1(b) Aruna W/o Rajesh Burbure

1(c) Suvarna W/o Vinaya Jartarghar,

2. Jayachand S/o Tukaramsa Jituri

3. Smt. Snehalata W/o Ambasa

4. Smt. Jayashree W/o Ramesh

Date of institution of suit : 12.04.20012

Nature of suit : Specific performance of

binding on the plaintiffs. It is further sought for gift

2. In O.S. No.309/ the description of the suit

‘A’ SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

Immovable properties bearing CTS No.1300/C-2,

220 sq. yards respectively, situated adjacent to each

‘B’ SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

Properties situated in Krishnapur village Tq. Hubli.

2) Survey No. 97/4+5A Plot No.39 measuring 06 acres

‘C’ SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

The properties situated in Gokul road, Hubli.

other. The above said properties together are bounded

3. The genealogy of the plaintiffs and defendants

TULAJANSA JITURI (propositus) – Dead

4. As per the plaint averments the plaintiffs

and Smt. Ambubai W/o Tukaramsa Jituri and rest of

5. The original suit properties held by the

6. The properties in ‘B’ schedule were the self-

7. In respect of ‘C’ schedule properties, the

8. In ‘C’’ schedule properties the property

the defendants No.1 and 2 have suppressing of these

9. In the plaint further averred that the

10. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 till

respective matrimonial homes. Hence the plaintiffs and

11. In the plaint it is further averred that there is

12. It is further averred in the plaint that the

plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 2 as Class-I heir and

9 executed by the defendants No.1 and 2 in respect of

13. As per the plaint, it is further case of the

suit, by observing that the defendants No.8 and 9 are at

14. After service of summons, the defendants

appeared through Sri. R.T. Hebbar, Adv. and the

15. The defendant No.1 has died and his L.Rs.

16. The defendants No.1 and 2 partly admits the