IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

BENGALURU
O.S. No.7858/2023

BETWEEN:

Sri.Arasappa S/o. Sri P Anjanappa

Aged about 44 years,
Residing at: No.44, 2nd Main,
3nd Cross, Plague Mariyamma Temple,
Hosahalli, Vijayanagar Bangalore North,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560040. : PLAINTIFF

AND

1.Sri. Y. Nagaraja S/o. Smt. Muniyamma

Aged about 56 Years'
Residing at House No.3/37,
4th Cross, A.K. Colony Hosahalli,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560040.

2. Smt. T. Saraswathi W/o. Sri..Y. Nagaraja

Aged about 50 Years ,
Residing at House No.3/37,
4th Cross, A.K. Colony Hosahalli
Bangalore-560040. :
DEFENDANTS

PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 AND 2 OF THE CODE OF

CIVIL PROCUDURE.

The Plaintiff above named submits as follows:-

1. That the address of the plaintiff for the purpose of issue
Notice, suit summons, etc., from this Hon'ble Court is
correctly stated in the cause title. However, the Plaintiff is
represented through his Advocate Sri. A. S. Naveen, ASN
Associates, Opp. M.K.Ahmed Super Market, No.906/49, 6th
Main, Vijayanagar, Bangalore - 560040 on record.

2. That the Address for the Defendants for the similar

purpose is correctly stated in the cause title.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. The plaintiff submits that, the plaintiff is a grandson of

Arasappa. Who is left behind four daughters namely Smt.
Late Muniyamma. Late Munigangamma Smt. Munirajamma
and Late Chikkathayamma, the said arasappa died in the
year of 1975. Late Sri. Arasappa has left behind one Site
measuring 36 x 48 feet allotted to him on 20.07.1957 by
way of Hakku Pathra under G.O. No. LB 1194 HDC-1-54-249
dated: 10.05.1955 in respect of Site No.3, which is more
fully described in the schedule hereunder. The copy of the
Hakkupathra under the impression of Memo dated
20.07.1957 issued by the office of the amildar Bengaluru
north taluk, Kempegowda Road is herewith produced and
marked as DOCUMENT NO.1.

4. The plaintiff further submits that, after the demise of Sri.

Arasappa, all the 4 daughters name herein have succeeded
to the schedule property. Out of the daughters first
daughter Smt. Muniyamma marry. However, one Sri.
Yellappa had kept Smt. Muniyamma as Mistress and he died
later. Out of the said relationship with Yellappa,
Muniyamma begot two sons.and two daughters. Among
them elder son of Muniyamma namely Munikrishna died
and the first defendant is another son. The Xerox copy of
the familf tree by way of affidavit is herewith produced and
marked as DOCUMENT NO.2.

5. The Plaintiff further submits that, rest of the other dau

namely Muniganganuma, Munirajamme and Chikka
Thoyanma are married and living with their husbands and
all the 3 daughters are in joint possession of schedule
property. Smt. Munigangamma has one female child by
name Gangarajamma and Munirajamma has four male and
two female children. Smt. Chikkathayamma has three male
and two female children. The schedule property consists of
a house (Tiled Roof) measuring 10 x 48 feet. The first
defendant herein is residing in the said house.

6. The Plaintiff further submits that, the first defendant has

fabricated the documents of the schedule property and got
Khata changed in his name in the year 1999-2000,
concealing the fact that there are other claimants entitled
to share in the schedule property and without the
knowledge of the Plaintiff.

7. It is submit that the 2nd daughter Smt. Munigangamma

and Smt. 3rd daughter Munirajamma of deceased
Arasappa, came to know about the change of Khatha in the
name of Y Nagaraja S/o Muniyamma who the son of 1st
daughter of Arasappa. Then, the 2nd and 3rd daughter of
deceased Arasappa have approached the Court of VII Addl.
City Civil Judge (CCH-19), at Bangalore and filed OS
No.9560/2001 praying for an Injunction Order restraining
the first defendant from dealing with the schedule property.
However, the said suit came to be dismissed stating that
"An injunction cannot be granted when equally efficacious
relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of
proceeding except in case of breach of trust", which is only
for technical reasons and not on any material
aspects/grounds. The copy of the said judgment dated
29.09.2004 passed by the VII ADDL City Civil Court is here
with produced and marked as DOCUMENT NO.3.

8. The plaintiff further submits that, Smt. Muniyamma.

Munigangamma, Munirajamma and Smt. Chikka
Thayamma, four daughters of deceased Arasappa, have
executed a Power of Attorney dated: 02.09.1998 in favour
of Sri. A. Gangadhar S/o. Sri. P. Anjanappa and late
Munirajamma, Grand Son the of Late Sri. Arasappa. As per
the said Power of Attorney dated: 02.09.1998, Sri. A.
Gangadhar has got all the rights to deal with the, schedule
property like sale, mortgage, etc., this being the case, the
first defendant has fabricated the property documents and
try to dispose of the said property / develop the said
property denying the lawful rights of the plaintiff, The copy
of the Power of Attorney dated: 02.09.1998 is herewith
produced and marked as DOCUMENT NO.4.

9. The plaintiff further submits that, the first and the second
defendants herein are trying to deal with the schedule
property and somehow grab the same denying the lawful
right / share of the plaintiff.

10. The plaintiff further submits that, the defendants are in

illegal possession of the scheduled property as they have
neither consulted the plaintiff nor taken them into
consideration while dealing with the schedule property.

11. The plaintiff submits that, the first defendant without

having any valid title and right of the schedule property,
with an intention to deny the lawful rights and share of the
plaintiff, have executed Gift Deed dated: 09.03.2022
registered before the Sub-Registrar. Rajajinagar
(Yeshvanthpur), Bangalore, as per Document No. YPR- 1-
06774/2021-22, stored in CD No. YPRD992, dated:
09.03.2022, in favour of the second defendant gifting the
schedule property to create a record and build up illegal
property documents. The copy of the Gift deed dated:
09.03.2022 is herewith produced and marked as
DOCUMENT No.5. Now the first defendant is trying to
develop/construct the building on the schedule property
which is illegal. Thus, the defendants are trying to deny the
legitimate share of the plaintiff in the schedule property.
The plaintiff further submits that said transaction is a
fabricated and fraudulent transaction.

12. The plaintiff further submits that, they have brought the
above said fact for the knowledge of the defendant's and
requested the defendants not to resort to any act which will
alter / damage the right of lawful right / share of the
plaintiff in the schedule property. However, both the
defendants have threatened the plaintiff and abused in
filthy language and shouted to do whatever required by law
and the defendants would defend the same but not stop in
dealing with the schedule property.

13. The plaintiff further submits that, the defendants have,

committed fraud as they have fabricated the property
documents, trying to hush up the legitimate share of the
plaintiff in the schedule property.

14. It is further submitted that, the suit schedule property is

the joint family property of the plaintiffs and they are
entitled for their legitimate sharesias there is no partition is
effected between the joint family of the plaintiffs have
bonafide belief that, they will get their legitimate shares
over the suit schedule property.when the defendants
refused for partition, they got utterly shock and
approaching this hon'ble court without any remedy.hence,
the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for partition,
permanent injunction and other cxonsequential reliefs.

15. The cause of action for this suit arose in the notice
given when the plaintiffs have approached the Defendants
for partition over the suit schedule property and
subsequently, all are within the Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court.

16. The suit of the plaintiffs for the purpose of court fee and
jurisdiction is valued as per the separate valuation slip and
court fee is paid accordingly,

17. The plaintiff have not filed any other suit on the same
cause of action before any other Court and no other suit or
proceedings is pending to the knowledge of the plaintiff.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully prays that this

Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree:-

(A) To declare that the plaintiff entitled for their ¼ th

legitimate shares metes and bounds, over the suit schedule
property by

(B) To direct the defendants to vacate the share of the

plaintiff in the Schedule Property and to grant an order of
injunction restraining the defendants to deal / alter /
construct/ demolish the schedule property,

(C) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case,
including an order as to the costs of this suit, in the
interests of justice and equity.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All that piece and parcel of the House Property bearing No.
37 (PID No.34-22-37), Ward No.31, Later 31, 30 and 34 and
presently bearing Ward No.124, 4th Cross, Hosahalli,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore Bangalore 560040, measuring East
to West 36 feet and North to South 48 feet, out of which
half of the Eastern Portion of the Property measuring East
to West 18 Feet and North to South 48 Feet, totally
measuring 864 sq.ft, with all Civic Amenities, and bounded
on the:

East by : Property belonging to other party

West by : Half of the Western Portion of the Property

bearing No.37, presently bearing Municipal No.37/2
belonging to Smt. Savithramma.

North by: Road

South by: Conservancy Lane.

Advocate for Plaintiff Plaintiff

VERIFICATION

We the plaintiff, above named, do hereby declare and state

that the contents of the suit stated in paragraphs 1 to 17
including the description of suit schedule property are true
and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and
belief. When is stated above is true and correct to the best
of my knowledge information and belief.

BANGALORE

DATE: 09.09.2023 PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT-
BENGALURU
O.S.NO.7858/2023

BETWEEN,

SRI. ARASAPPA : PLAINTIFF

AND

SRI.Y.NAGARAJA AND ANOTHER : DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 9 RULE 7 OF THE CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:-

The defendants submits as follows:-

That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit

the defendants pray that this Hon’ble court maybe pleased
to set aside the ex-parte order dated: 15/02/2024 passed
against the defendants and further be pleased to permit
them to come on record and contest the above case in the
interest of justice and equity.

BENGALURU ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANTS DATE:

03/08/2024
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT-
BENGALURU
O.S.NO.7858/2023

BETWEEN,

SRI. ARASAPPA : PLAINTIFF

AND

SRI.Y.NAGARAJA AND ANOTHER : DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

1. Sri. Y. Nagaraja S/o. Smt. Muniyamma ,aged about 56

Years' Residing at House No.3/37, 4th Cross, A.K. Colony
Hosahalli, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560040. do herby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:-

1. I am the defendant No.1 in above case and well

conversant with facts and circumstance of the case, hence I
swear to this affidavit and also on behalf of defendant No 2.

2. I state that the plaintiff has filed the above suit for
partition and separate possession against us.

3. I submit that the summons issued by this Hon’ble court in

the above was misplaced in our house. We were under the
impression that another summons will be served upon us
however while cleaning the house last week we found the
said summons and we approached the counsel and after
verification it was learnt that this Hon’ble court was leased
to place us ex-parte on 15/02/2024 in the above case.

I submit that our absences in the above case was not

intentional but for the bonafide reason stated herein
aboeve, hence it is just and necessary for this Hon’ble court
to set aside the order of ex-parte and permit us to come on
record and contest the above case since we have good case
on merits otherwise we will be put to grate hardship and
injury on the on the other hand no hardship or injury will be
caused to anybody.

WHEREFORE, I pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased to

allow the application in the above case, in the interest of
justice and equity.

I, the Deponent above named do hereby state that the

contents of the above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.

IDENTIFIED BY ME

ADVOCATE DEPONENT
BANGALORE SWORN TO BEFORE ME
DATE: 03/08/2024
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT-
BENGALURU
O.S.NO.7858/2023

BETWEEN,

SRI. ARASAPPA : PLAINTIFF

AND

SRI.Y.NAGARAJA AND ANOTHER : DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:-

The defendants submits as follows:-

That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit

the defendants pray that this Hon’ble court maybe pleased
to permit them to file the written statement by duly
condoning the delay if any, and further be pleased to
permit them to come on record and contest the above case
in the interest of justice.

BENGALURU ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANT NO.1 & 2

DATE: 1/6/2022
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT-
BENGALURU
O.S.NO.7858/2023

BETWEEN,

SRI. ARASAPPA : PLAINTIFF

AND

SRI.Y.NAGARAJA AND ANOTHER : DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT

1. Sri. Y. Nagaraja S/o. Smt. Muniyamma ,aged about 56

Years' Residing at House No.3/37, 4th Cross, A.K. Colony
Hosahalli, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560040. do herby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:-

1. I am the defendant No.1 in above case and well

conversant with facts and circumstance of the case, hence I
swear to this affidavit and also on behalf of defendant No 2.

2. I state that the plaintiff has filed the above suit for
partition and separate possession against us.

3. I submit that the summons issued by this Hon’ble court in

the above was misplaced in our house. We were under the
impression that another summons will be served upon us
however while cleaning the house last week we found the
said summons and we approached the counsel and after
verification it was learnt that this Hon’ble court was leased
to place us ex-parte on 15/02/2024 in the above case.

I submit that our absences in the above case was not

intentional but for the bonafide reason stated herein above.
further I state that we very good case on merits and it is
incumbent upon us to file written statement in order to
defend our case hence it is just and necessary and
reasonable for this Hon’ble court to provide us an
opportunity to file the written statement and contest the
above case otherwise we will be put to grate hardship and
injury on the on the other hand no hardship or injury will be
caused to anybody.

WHEREFORE, I pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased to

allow the application in the above case, in the interest of
justice and equity.

I, the Deponent above named do hereby state that the

contents of the above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.

IDENTIFIED BY ME

ADVOCATE DEPONENT
BANGALORE SWORN TO BEFORE ME
DATE: 03/08/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AT-BENGALURU
 O.S.NO.7858/2023
BETWEEN,

SRI. ARASAPPA :
PLAINTIFF

AND

SRI.Y.NAGARAJA AND ANOTHER :

DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT

WRITTEN STATEMENT UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1 OF

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:-

The defendants submits as follows:-

1. At the very out set the top noted suit for relief of partition
and separate possession filed by the plaintiff is
misconceived, fallacious, fabricated, untenable,
hyperbole most imaginative, superficial and vexatious
and not maintainable either in law, facts, circumstances
and probabilities whatsoever. Hence the same is liable to
be dismissed at the very threshold.

2. The defendants denies all the averments made in the

plaint paragraphs are hereby categorically and
specifically deny by the defendants as totally false,
frivolous and fabricated, other than those which are
specifically admitted herein.

3. The averments made in paras 1 and 2 of the plaint does

not call for any reply, however the averments made in
para 3 of the plaint although is true, it is for the plaintiff
to substantiate the same.

4. The allegations made in para 4 of the plaint that after

demise of Arasappa his four daughters succeeded to the
schedule property and that out of the four daughters
though Muniyamma was married she was kept mistress
of one Yallappa who died latter and out of the said
 relationship she begot two sons and two daughters one
son Munikrishana is dead and the defendant No 1 is the
second son etc. are hereby vehemently and starkly
objected by the defendants and the defendants reserve
the liberty to initiate criminal proceedings for defamatory
and derogatory statement. Further, it was unnecessary
and needless on the part of the plaintiff to cast such
aspersions and also to make such baseless and
unfounded allegations against the defendant No 1 hence
the said allegations are hereby totally and absolutely
false, unjust and the plaintiff is put to strict proof.

5. The averments made in para 5 of the plaint that the

other three daughter viz Munigangamma, Munirajamma
and Chikkathayamma are married and living with their
husbands and children and that they are in joint
possession of the schedule property is hereby specifically
and categorically denied as totally false and frivolous.
However the further averment that the defendants are
staying in house tiled roof measuring 48 feet X 10 feet I
the schedule property is not correct on the contrary the
defendants have constructed three floor RCC roof house
to an extent of 48 feet X 18 feet and AC sheet house to
an extent of 48 feet X 18 feet hence the plaintiff is put to
strict proof of the same.

6. The allegations made in para 6 of the plaint that the

defendant No 1 by cancelling the true facts had changed
the Katha in the year 1999-2000 depriving the rights of
other claimants etc. are hereby specifically denied as
false and baseless and the plaintiff is put to strict proof.

7. The averments made in para 7 of the plaint that the

second daughter Munigangamma and third daughter
Munirajamma of Arasappa knowing about the change of
Katha by defendant No 1 filed a suit against defendant
No 1 in OS No 9560/2001 on the file of 7addl city civil
judge at Bangalore (CCH-19) and that the same came to
be dismissed on 25/09/2004 on technical grounds etc.
are totally and absolutely false. In fact the Hon’ble court
after considering all the aspects, facts, circumstances
and probabilities of the case rightly dismissed OS No
 9560/2001 hence the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the
same.

8. The averments made in para 8 of the plaint that the four

daughters of Arasappa had executed power of attorney
dated 02/09/1998 in favour of A. Gangadhar S/o P.
Anjinappa and late Munirajamma and that the said A.
Gangadhar had all the rights to sell and mortgage etc. in
respect of the schedule property and this being the case
the defendant No 1 by fabricating documents of the
property and tried to dispose/develop the said property
denying the lawful rights of the plaintiff etc. are hereby
emphatically denied as false in fact the plaintiff to knock
off the legitimate property of the defendants as
created/concocted the alleged power of attorney dated
02/09/1998 hence the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the
same.

9. The allegations made in paras 9 and 10 of the plaint that

the defendants are trying to deal with the said property
and somehow grab the same and deny the lawful
right/share of the plaintiff and are in illegal possession of
the schedule property and that they have not consulted
or taken them into consideration while dealing with the
same etc. are absolutely unnecessary, irrelevant and
needless on the part of the plaintiff, apart from denying
the same the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

10. The averments made in paras 11 to 13 of the plaint

that the defendant No 1 without any valid title or any
right over the schedule property, and with intention to
deny the lawful rights and share of the plaintiff as
executed a gift deed dated 09/03/2022 in favour of his
wife defendant No 2 herein to create record and build
illegal documents and that the defendant No 1 trying to
develop/construct building on the schedule which is
illegal and that the said transactions is fabricated and
that the plaintiff had brought the same to the knowledge
of defendants and requested them not to resort to any
act which will alter or damage the right/share of the
plaintiff and that the defendants threatened them with
filthy language and that they would and not stop, dealing
with the schedule property and that the defendants
 committed fraud and trying to hush up the legitimate
share of the plaintiff etc. are all absolutely false,
fabricated, baseless, reckless allegations needlessly
made against the defendants further these defendants in
no uncertain terms hereby repudiate the same and the
plaintiff is put to strict proof.

11. The averment made in para 14 of the plaint that the

suit schedule property is joint family property and that
they are entitled to their legitimate share and there is no
partition effected in the joint family of the plaintiff and
that they have got bonafide belief that they will get their
legitimate share over the suit schedule property, and
that when the defendants refuse to partition they got
utterly shocked and approached this Hon’ble court
without any remedy hence this suit etc. Are all hereby
specifically and categorically denied by the defendants
further the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

12. The averments made in paras 15, 16, and 17, are
hereby specifically denied by the defendants. Although
there is no cause of action to file the above suit the
plaintiff has invented an imaginary cause of action with
ulterior motive and oblique intention to usurp and grab
the schedule properties, the alleged cause of action is
created by the plaintiff, hence the above suit actually
suffers from want of proper cause of action. The plaintiff
has not properly valued the above suit and that the court
fees paid is highly inadequate and hence on this score
alone the above suit is liable to be dismissed. Over all the
above suit suffers from infirmities, lacuna and
unreasonableness.

TRUE FACTS OF THE CASE

13. The plaintiff has filed the above suit with ulterior
motive and ill-intention knowing fully well that he has no
right over the schedule property. The plaintiff has filed
the above suit only to harass the defendants the entire
suit is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

14. The defendants submit that there is no joint family

status or joint family nucleus existing between the
 plaintiff and the defendants hence there are absolute no
any joint family ties between the plaintiff and the
defendants hence the question of partition does not at all
arise for consideration. The plaintiff has instituted the
most vexatious and frivolous suit and as unnecessarily
dragged the defendants to this needless and frivolous
litigation hence the above suit is liable to be dismissed in
limine.

15. The suit schedule property is not the joint family

property and the plaintiff though being pretty well aware
of the same has intentionally and for no rhyme or reason
as filed the above suit only to waste auspicious and
precious time of the court hence the top noted suit filed
by the plaintiff is unwarranted and unreasonable and
liable to be nipped in the bud.

16. The defendants submit that Arasappa S/o Hanumaiah

the original owner of the schedule property had sold the
same in favour of Adugodi Akalappa under sale deed
dated 30/10/1962. The said property was purchased back
by Arasappa S/o Hanumaiah under sale deed dated
02/11/1962. The said Arasappa S/o Hanumaiah intern
sold the same in favour of his daughter Muniyamma
under sale deed dated 28/01/1963 measuring 30 feet X
30 feet and further sold 20 feet X 28 feet in favour of
Yerrappa S/o Ramayappa under sale deed dated
27/11/1963, the said Yarrappa sold in favour of
Muniyamma under sale deed dated 28/07/1967 and
further the said Muniyamma sold in favour of Vasithimal
S/o Hirachand under sale deed dated 28/07/1967. Latter
the said Yarappa sold in favour of Muniyamma under sale
deed dated 05/04/1968. Latter the said Muniyamma sold
in favour of SRS Reddy under sale deed dated
12/10/1969 and the said Vasthimal sold in favour of SRS
Reddy under sale deed dated 22/10/1969. The said SRS
Reddy again sold in favour of Muniyamma under sale
deed dated 28/06/1975, subsequently the said
Muniyamma, Munikrishna and Nagaraja. Y defendant No
1 sold the same Shivanagappa under sale deed dated
24/04/1985. The said Muniyamma, Munikrishna and
Nagaraj later executed rectification deed dated
06/01/1986 in favour of Shivanagappa. The said
 Shivanagappa later sold the same in favour of VKN
Sabath Ahamad under sale deed dated 19/03/1986.
Subsequently the VKN Sabath Amahad sold the schedule
property in favour of Nagaraja Y the defendant No 1
herein for a valuable sale consideration under registered
sale dated 18/02/1999. The defendant No 1 after having
purchased the schedule property under sale deed dated
18/02/1999 got the Katha and other records transferred
into his name and he was paying property tax regularly
to the concerned authorities and was legally exercising
all his legal right, interest and authority over the
schedule property as the true owner and the same is the
self-acquired property of the defendant No 1. Except
defendant No 1 no one else had any manner of right, title
or interest over the schedule property.

17. The defendant No 1 being the absolute and exclusive

owner of the schedule property got executed a registered
gift deed in favour of his wife the defendant No 2 herein
under registered gift deed dated 09/03/2022. The
defendant No 2 after having acquired the schedule
property under the gift deed dated 09/03/2022. The
defendant No 2 is paying taxes to the concerned
authorities of jurisdiction BBMP and she is exercising all
her legal right and authority over the schedule property
as the sole and absolute owner of the schedule property.

18. The defendants submit that the plaintiff has no locus

standi to file the above suit and he has concealed the
true and material facts hence the suit filed by the plaintiff
suffers from suppressio vari and suggestio falsi, the
plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble court with clean
hands.

19. The defendants submit that one Munigangamma and

Munirajamma the mother of plaintiff had filed a suit
against the defendant No 1 in OS No 9560/2001 pleading
the same set up facts, however the Hon’ble court was
pleased to dismiss the said suit on 29/09/2004. The said
Munigangamma and Munirajamma have not challenged
the said judgement.
20. Hence the above suit filed by the plaintiff is like old
wine in new bottle hence the suit of the plaintiff is
seriously hit by “res-judicata” hence the suit of the
plaintiff is eschewed by this Hon’ble court.
21. The defendants submit that they have invested huge
amounts of money and have constructed three floors
RCC building in half portion of the schedule property and
AC sheet roof house in another half portion of the
schedule property the defendants have obtained
electricity connection from the department of BESCOM
and water connection from BWSSB to the schedule
property, the defendants have invested their hard earned
money on the schedule property the plaintiff out of
jealousy and envy as filed this suit by creating a cock and
bull story in order to impress the Hon’ble court. Further
the plaintiff has absolutely not even an iota of right, title
or interest over the schedule property.

22. It is submitted that the said Arasappa S/o Hanumaiah

himself had divested all his right over the schedule
property about six decades ago, whereas the plaintiff
does not have even a mustard seed of right over the
schedule property is now, in the guise of this suit is trying
to extort money from the defendants hence the suit of
the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

23. The suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by

law of limitation and the same is not maintainable hence
the suit of the plaintiff viewed any corner is not
sustainable and hence liable to be dismissed.

24. It is submitted that the plaintiff has played mischief

against the defendants to defraud and knock of the
property by hook or crook. There is no merit in the case.

25. It is stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder and

misjoinder of necessary parties, the suit is hit by
malfeasance and misfeasance. The defendant reserves
the right to urge or add additional or fresh grounds. The
defendant further states that they deny all the other
averments and allegations that are not specifically
traversed herein as false, incorrect and untrue. Thus the
entire suit of the plaintiff, viewed from any corner is
devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed in limine.
WHEREFORE, the defendants most humbly pray that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the above suit
filed by the plaintiff with exemplary costs to meet the
ends of justice.

ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANTS

DEFENDANTS

VERIFICATION

We the Defendants in the above case do here by state

that the contents of the above are true and correct to the
best of our knowledge, information and belief.

BENGALURU
DEFENDANTS
DATE: 03/08/2024.
 IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT-BENGALURU
O.S.NO.7858/2023
BETWEEN,

SRI. ARASAPPA :
PLAINTIFF

AND

SRI.Y.NAGARAJA AND ANOTHER :

DEFENDANTS

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11(a) AND (d) OF

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The defendants submit as follows:

That for the reasons stated in the accompanied affidavit the

defendants pray that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to

TRUE FACTS OF THE CASE

26. The plaintiff has filed the above suit with ulterior
motive and ill-intention knowing fully well that he has no
right over the schedule property. The plaintiff has filed
the above suit only to harass the defendants the entire
suit is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

27. The defendants submit that there is no joint family

status or joint family nucleus existing between the
plaintiff and the defendants hence there are absolute no
any joint family ties between the plaintiff and the
defendants hence the question of partition does not at all
arise for consideration. The plaintiff has instituted the
most vexatious and frivolous suit and as unnecessarily
dragged the defendants to this needless and frivolous
litigation hence the above suit is liable to be dismissed in
limine.
28. The suit schedule property is not the joint family
property and the plaintiff though being pretty well aware
of the same has intentionally and for no rhyme or reason
as filed the above suit only to waste auspicious and
precious time of the court hence the top noted suit filed
by the plaintiff is unwarranted and unreasonable and
liable to be nipped in the bud.

29. The defendants submit that Arasappa S/o Hanumaiah

the original owner of the schedule property had sold the
same in favour of Adugodi Akalappa under sale deed
dated 30/10/1962. The said property was purchased back
by Arasappa S/o Hanumaiah under sale deed dated
02/11/1962. The said Arasappa S/o Hanumaiah intern
sold the same in favour of his daughter Muniyamma
under sale deed dated 28/01/1963 measuring 30 feet X
30 feet and further sold 20 feet X 28 feet in favour of
Yerrappa S/o Ramayappa under sale deed dated
27/11/1963, the said Yarrappa sold in favour of
Muniyamma under sale deed dated 28/07/1967 and
further the said Muniyamma sold in favour of Vasithimal
S/o Hirachand under sale deed dated 28/07/1967. Latter
the said Yarappa sold in favour of Muniyamma under sale
deed dated 05/04/1968. Latter the said Muniyamma sold
in favour of SRS Reddy under sale deed dated
12/10/1969 and the said Vasthimal sold in favour of SRS
Reddy under sale deed dated 22/10/1969. The said SRS
Reddy again sold in favour of Muniyamma under sale
deed dated 28/06/1975, subsequently the said
Muniyamma, Munikrishna and Nagaraja. Y defendant No
1 sold the same Shivanagappa under sale deed dated
24/04/1985. The said Muniyamma, Munikrishna and
Nagaraj later executed rectification deed dated
06/01/1986 in favour of Shivanagappa. The said
Shivanagappa later sold the same in favour of VKN
Sabath Ahamad under sale deed dated 19/03/1986.
Subsequently the VKN Sabath Amahad sold the schedule
property in favour of Nagaraja Y the defendant No 1
herein for a valuable sale consideration under registered
sale dated 18/02/1999. The defendant No 1 after having
purchased the schedule property under sale deed dated
18/02/1999 got the Katha and other records transferred
 into his name and he was paying property tax regularly
to the concerned authorities and was legally exercising
all his legal right, interest and authority over the
schedule property as the true owner and the same is the
self-acquired property of the defendant No 1. Except
defendant No 1 no one else had any manner of right, title
or interest over the schedule property.

30. The defendant No 1 being the absolute and exclusive

owner of the schedule property got executed a registered
gift deed in favour of his wife the defendant No 2 herein
under registered gift deed dated 09/03/2022. The
defendant No 2 after having acquired the schedule
property under the gift deed dated 09/03/2022. The
defendant No 2 is paying taxes to the concerned
authorities of jurisdiction BBMP and she is exercising all
her legal right and authority over the schedule property
as the sole and absolute owner of the schedule property.

31. The defendants submit that the plaintiff has no locus

standi to file the above suit and he has concealed the
true and material facts hence the suit filed by the plaintiff
suffers from suppressio vari and suggestio falsi, the
plaintiff has not approached this Hon’ble court with clean
hands.

32. The defendants submit that one Munigangamma and

Munirajamma the mother of plaintiff had filed a suit
against the defendant No 1 in OS No 9560/2001 pleading
the same set up facts, however the Hon’ble court was
pleased to dismiss the said suit on 29/09/2004. The said
Munigangamma and Munirajamma have not challenged
the said judgement.

33. Hence the above suit filed by the plaintiff is like old
wine in new bottle hence the suit of the plaintiff is
seriously hit by “res-judicata” hence the suit of the
plaintiff is eschewed by this Hon’ble court.
34. The defendants submit that they have invested huge
amounts of money and have constructed three floors
RCC building in half portion of the schedule property and
AC sheet roof house in another half portion of the
schedule property the defendants have obtained
 electricity connection from the department of BESCOM
and water connection from BWSSB to the schedule
property, the defendants have invested their hard earned
money on the schedule property the plaintiff out of
jealousy and envy as filed this suit by creating a cock and
bull story in order to impress the Hon’ble court. Further
the plaintiff has absolutely not even an iota of right, title
or interest over the schedule property.

35. It is submitted that the said Arasappa S/o Hanumaiah

himself had divested all his right over the schedule
property about six decades ago, whereas the plaintiff
does not have even a mustard seed of right over the
schedule property is now, in the guise of this suit is trying
to extort money from the defendants hence the suit of
the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

36. The suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by

law of limitation and the same is not maintainable hence
the suit of the plaintiff viewed any corner is not
sustainable and hence liable to be dismissed.

37. It is submitted that the plaintiff has played mischief

against the defendants to defraud and knock of the
property by hook or crook. There is no merit in the case.

38. It is stated that the suit is bad for non-joinder and

misjoinder of necessary parties, the suit is hit by
malfeasance and misfeasance. The defendant reserves
the right to urge or add additional or fresh grounds. The
defendant further states that they deny all the other
averments and allegations that are not specifically
traversed herein as false, incorrect and untrue. Thus the
entire suit of the plaintiff, viewed from any corner is
devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed in limine.

WHEREFORE, the defendants most humbly pray that this

Hon’ble court may be pleased to dismiss the above suit
filed by the plaintiff with exemplary costs to meet the
ends of justice.
ADVOCATE FOR DEFENDANTS
DEFENDANTS

VERIFICATION

We the Defendants in the above case do here by state

that the contents of the above are true and correct to the
best of our knowledge, information and belief.

BENGALURU
DEFENDANTS
DATE: 03/08/2024.