IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

TUMKUR
O.S NO. 707/2022
Between
K.G Vani. Plaintiff
And
Prathima and others. Defendant

Under order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908

1. The plaintiff has falsely claimed all suit schedule properties as ancestral
properties, Genealogical table is incomplete. Claim of the plaintiff that
K.Narasingarao is the original propositus is false

2. Claim of the plaintiff is that she is legally entitled to seek share in the
schedule properties is false, her further claim that Section 6 of the Hindu
Succession Act,2005 is applicable to this case is also false. Kharab land
cannot be held to be ordered to be partitioned. Moreover land bearing
Sy.No 20 of kodthimmanahalli is subject matter of litigation before the
revenue authority. No partition can be ordered in respect of land bearing
Sy.No 20 since admittedly litigation is pending.

3. The plaintiff has already received compensation in respect of lands

acquired, though she has suppressed this material fact with ulterior motive.
The plaintiff while contending that she has not been informed about an
alleged agreement of sale of certain lands has mentioned several details of
alleged sale transaction, claim of the plaintiff that all her brothers have
played fraud is absolutely false. In the event the plaintiff initiates criminal
proceedings it will be contested. It is false that the total extent of ancestral
properties is more than 70 acres and the defendants have suppressed
such information.

4. It is that item No.17 of the suit schedule property has been purchased by
the second defendant from out of joint family funds. It is also false that any
joint family funds has been used for construction of a house in item No.17
of the suit schedule property. In fact there was no joint family fund as
alleged by the plaintiff. The second defendant denies that he has received
more than ₹2 crores from KAIDB along with his brothers
5. Plaintiff may be directed to prove the contentions raised by her in Para 11
of the plaint. Similarly the plaintiff may be asked to prove the contents of
Para 12 of the plaint. This defendant empathically denies that he along
with his wife have paid more than 45 lakhs to the vendor as consideration
and utilised any joint family fund for the purpose of purchasing item No.17
of the suit schedule property

6. This defendant denies that the plaintiff’s husband has paid ₹40,000/- to
Karnataka Bank, SS Puram branch in connection with the gold loan
availed by his brother Krishnamurthy Bharadwaj. This defendant also
denies that his mother owned gold ornaments belonging to his deceased
brother Krishnamurthy Bharadwaj and the plaintiff can claim share in gold
ornaments belonging to her deceased brother or the mother

7. This defendant is not aware of the properties in the name of Krishnamurthy

Bharadwaj and said to have been mortgaged in favour of Canara Bank. He
is also not aware of the bank deposits in the name Krishnamurthy
Bharadwaj, The plaintiff may be asked to prove the existence of item
No.18 of the suit schedule property.

8. This defendant denies that his father and grandfather owned more than
70-80 acres of land and the value of the same would be 8-10 crores. He
further denies that he along with defendant No.1 has played fraud with a
dishonest intention of cheating the plaintiff. This defendant also denies that
the plaintiff is entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties. He
further denies that the plaintiff is in joint possession of all those properties
along with the defendants. Claim of the plaintiff is that any partition of the
ancestral properties between the members of the joint family is not binding
on the plaintiff. It is pertinent to state here that the III additional Civil Judge
JMFC, Tumkuru through his judgement and decree dated 11th april 2017
has ordered for the partition of the joint family properties and the same is
binding on the plaintiff. A copy of the judgement and the decree is
produced.

9. This defendant denies that the plaintiff has any cause of petition to file the
suit. He also denies that a month prior to filing of this suit plaintiff
demanded her share in the suit schedule properties. It is pertinent to state
here that on 09-05-2014 the plaintiff along with her sisters K.G
 Rajalakshmi and K.G Vijayalakshmi, defendant No.3 has executed a
release cum relinquishment deed in favour of her mother and brothers
after receiving financial benefit. A portion of the said deed reads;

A copy of release Cum Relinquishment deed is produced

10. Plaintiff has deliberately suppressed the above material facts in the plaint
with a view to mislead the court and gain share in the suit schedule
properties. Assuming that the plaintiff was entitled to claim any share in the
suit schedule properties prior to 09-05-2014 she has relinquished all such
right in favour of her mother and brothers.

11. It is also to be noted that this Defendant and his wife secured credit facility
from Canara Bank, Anatharasanahalli for acquiring the residential site
measuring east to west 40’ and north to south 30’ and also construction of a
residential house in the said site. Plaintiff has falsely alleged that the said
property was acquired by using “Joint family Fund”. A copy of the sanction
memorandum of Canara bank at 23-01-2018 is produced.

12. Particulars of the schedule properties is not correctly provided by the

plaintiff. This defendant submits that plaintiff is not entitled to claim or receive
any mesne profits from the defendants. The plaintiff is also not entitled to seek
any share in the schedule properties. As regards the plaintiff's prayer seeking
declaration that encumbrances created on the schedule properties is not
binding on her cannot be granted in the absence of any not binding on her
cannot be granted in the absence of any specific instance/transaction. The
plaintiff is liable to pay costs of this suit to the defendant for unnecessarily
dragging them to the court
 13. The plaint requires to be rejected since the plaintiff has complied with the
requirements of Section 132 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, since
the plaintiff is not in possession of any suit properties, the valuation furnished
and the court fee paid is insufficient. The plaintiff may be directed to pay
required court fee on the plaint in accordance with Section 35(1) of the
Karnataka Court fees and suits valuation Act, 1958

Advocate for. Defendant No.2

Defendant No.2

Verification
What has been stated as in the paragraphs No 1-13 of the above written
Statements are true to the best of my knowledge information and belief

Place: Tumkuru
Date: Defendant No.2