IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT: M A G A D I

O . S . NO . : 276 / 2006

PLAINTIFF: SRI. G. RAVICHANDRA

// VS //

DEFENDANTS: SRI. GANGANNA &

OTHERS

That the Plaintiff begs to file the Written Argument herein under as
follows;

1) It is submitted that One Prepositor by name Gangaiah who is the

grand father of the plaintiff who was in possession and enjoyment of the
properties bearing sy.no.73, 74, and 75 of Karlamangala Village, Madabal
Hobli, Magadi Taluk and other properties. The said Gangaiah had four
sons namely 1) Kalegowda @ Gundappa, who is the 5 th defendant, 2) Sri.
Ganganna, who is the 1st defendant, 3) Narayanappa and 4) Naganna. The
Grand-father of the plaintiff Sri. Gangaiah died. After his death his wife
Smt. Narasamma who is the Grand-mother of the plaintiff was in
possession and enjoyment of the above said properties and other properties.
The Grand-mother of the plaintiff Smt. Narasamma given the partition to
her four sons on 30/05/1995. In the said partition the suit schedule
properties are fallen to the share of 1st defendant, who is the father of the
plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is the mother of the plaintiff and defendant no.3
and 4 are the sisters of the plaintiff. As such the suit schedule properties are
ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant no.1, 3 and
4. The plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 4 have constituted an Hindu
Undivided joint family and they have been continued in joint possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
2) It is submitted that the 1 st defendant being an illiterate working
has “D” group employee has been acting detrimental to the interest of the
plaintiff and has such the plaintiff requested the 1 st defendant to render
means profit derived from the suit schedule properties and he has been
postponing the same. The plaintiff finally convened a panchayathi on
20.5.2006 requesting and demanding the 1 st defendant to effect partition in
the suit schedule properties. For which the defendant refuse to effect
partition and informed that defendant no.1 and 2 have sold the suit schedule
properties in favour of the defendant no.5, who is the brother of the
defendant no.1 and in turn the defendant no.5 has filed a suit for specific
performance of the contract in O.S.No.158/1997 on the file of the Civil
Judge (Sr.D) at: Ramanagaram and obtained the decree in his favour. Then
he came to know that the defendant no.1, 2 and 5 have colluded each other
have created the alleged agreement of sale dated: 18/11/1996. The alleged
sale is not for the benefit of the plaintiff and there was no legal necessity.
That the defendant no.1 and 2 have no exclusive right, title, interest to
alienate the suit schedule properties in favour of the 5 th defendant. That the
plaintiff and defendant no.3 and 4 are not parties to the alleged Agreement
of sale and the alleged sale is in no-way binds to the plaintiff and moreover
the plaintiff and defendant no.3 and 4 are not parties in O.S.No.158/1997.
So, the Judgment and Decree passed in the above case is also not binds to
the plaintiff. Under the alleged agreement of sale, the defendant no.5 has
not derived any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit
schedule properties. There is/was no partition or division effected between
the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, 3 and 4 in the ancestral and joint family
properties i.e., in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has got right of
¼ th share in the suit schedule properties. The cause of action for the suit
arose on 20.05.2006, when the plaintiff finally requested and demanded the
1st defendant to effect partition and he refuse to effect partition. Hence, the
plaintiff has no other option except to file this suit for seeking partition
against the defendants.
3) That the defendants have appeared before the court through their
counsel and filed their Written Statements separately. That the defendant
no.1 and 2 filed written statement admitting the plaint avernaments. That
the defendant no.3 and 4 also filed their written statement admitting the
plaint avernaments and they have claimed their share in the suit schedule
properties.
4) That the 5th defendant filed his separate written statement by
admitting the relation ship and the suit schedule properties are an ancestral
and joint family properties and the same has been fallen to the share of 1 st
defendant under the Partition held among 1st defendant, 5th defendant and
their other brothers i.e., Narayanappa and Naganna and their mother Smt.
Narasamma and denied rest other avernaments of the plaint and has taken
contention admitting the relationship that plaintiff is the son of 5th defendant
brother 1st defendant and the suit schedule properties are joint family
properties and partition effected between defendant no.1, 5 and their
brothers and their mother. And at the time of alleged agreement of sale
plaintiff and defendant no.3 and 4 are minors. And further at the time of
alleged agreement, the defendant no.1, 2 and 5the defendant are in cordial
in term. And after the execution of alleged agreement of sale market value
of the properties is raised. The defendant no. 1 and 2 have not keep up their
words etc., and cordial relationship between the defendant no.1, 2 and 5
was broken and 5th defendant filed suit before the court and the said suit
was decreed and 5th defendant has deposited the remaining amount in the
court.
5) After the completion of the pleadings this Hon’ble Court framed
following issues;
1) ªÁ¢ zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1 jAzÀ 4£ÉÃ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ
¦vÁæfðvÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ dAn ¸Áé¢üãÀvÉAiÀÄ°èªÉ
JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉÉAiÉÄà ?
2) ªÁ¢, 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ
CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉUÁV CxÀsÀªÁ C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ
ªÀAiÀĸÀÌgÀ fêÀ£ÁA±ÀzÀ §UÉÎ zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
5£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ¥ÀgÀ¨sÁgÉ ªÀiÁr®è
JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?
3) 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ 5£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÉÆA
¢UÉ µÀjÃPÁÌV zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À
§UÉÎ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß
§gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. zÁªÉ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁr 5£ÉÃ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢ zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À §UÉÎ rQæ vÁ£ÀÄ zÁªÁ
¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À°è ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ »¸ÉìAiÀÄ
ªÉÄÃ¯É ¨sÁ¢üvÀ £ÁUÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®è JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢
¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAiÉÄà ?
4) 5£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ °TvÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è w½¹zÀAvÉ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£ÉÃ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ vÀ¤ßAzÀ
ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¨ÁQ
ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è vÁ£ÀÄ
oÉêÀt EnÖgÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAiÉÄÃ? CzÀgÀ°è ªÁ¢ »¸Éì
¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä CºÀð£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£É
JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAiÉÄà ?
5) ªÁ¢ zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è PÉýzÀAvÉ zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À°è 1/5 »¸Éì
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ¸Áé¢üãÀvÉ
¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä CºÀð£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAiÉÄà ?
6) AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ rQæ ?

6) In support of the plaintiff case has examined himself as PW-1

and got marked Ex.P.1 to 6 and Ex.P.7 and 8 are marked through DW-1.
Ex.P.1 to 4 are R.T.C. extracts with respect to suit schedule properties and
those revenue documents are clearly goes to show that suit schedule
properties are stands in the name of 1 st defendant and the same has been
acquired under partition. Ex.P-5 and 6 are Judgment and Decree passed in
O.S.No.158/1997 is clearly discloses that Plaintiff and defendant no.3 and 4
are not parties to the Decree as well as alleged agreement of sale. When the
plaintiff is not party to the decree as well as alleged agreement of sale the
decree and alleged agreement is not binds to the plaintiff share. Ex.P-7 is
document of agreement entered into between defendant no.1 and 5 showing
that the 5th defendant owning house property at Herohally (V) and the same
was mortgaged in favour of 1st defendant on 30/8/1996, since there was
damage caused to the building panchayathdars have settled the matter for
Rs.14,000/- (Mortgage Amount of Rs.10,000/- + Building damages amount
of Rs. 4,000/-) and on the very same day 5 th defendant received Rs.10,000/-
from the 1st defendant and remaining Rs.4,000/- shall be paid at the time of
delivering the vacant possession of the premises, in case the 1 st defendant
not delivered the possession of the premise, the remaining Rs.4,000/- has to
be used as an advance and agreed to pay Rs.500/- as rent. Ex.P-8 discloses
that 2nd defendant parents given share at: Site no. 4 in Sy.No.116 of
Herohally (V), Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring
to an extent of East to West: 60 feet, North to South: 40 feet. The
defendant Counsel cross examined the plaintiff has nothing elicited from
the plaintiff. The defendant counsel suggested in Page-8, 14 th and 15th line
that “ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ
D §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è” again in Page-9, line no. 3, 4 and 5 “
£À£Àß vÀAzÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉƼÀÄîªÀ
GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ zÁªÁ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 5£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ªÀiÁgÁl
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä M¦à 1996gÀ°è ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝ
JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è”. The 5th defendant himself admitting that
plaintiff father i.e., 1st defendant has not sold the suit schedule properties
and further for the purpose of purchasing the property at Bangalore has
entered into sale agreement. The 5th defendant has not produced piece of
document to show that the 1st and 2nd defendant sold the suit schedule
properties for the legal necessities i.e., for the benefit of minor plaintiff and
defendant no.3 and 4 and to purchase the property at: Bangalore. The 5 th
defendant has admitted the relationship between the plaintiff and
defendants and the suit schedule properties are an ancestral and joint family
properties of plaintiff and defendants no. l to 4.