Bangalore District Court
Serrkumaran G vs V Kumari Shylaja on 20 July, 2026
1 OS No. 26483/2018
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
KABC0A0036882018
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
COURT AT BENGALURU
(CCH.No.22)
Present: Sri. ONKARAPPA.R, B.Sc., LL.B.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 20th day of July, 2026
O.S. No.26483/2018
PLAINTIFF: Mr.SREEKUMARAN.G
Aged 71 years,
S/o Gangadharan House No.
3/61A, Near Krishnan Koil,
Thippramalai, Karungal 629157.
Kanyakumari Dist. Tamil Nadu.
(By Sri. NN Advocate)
VS
DEFENDANTS: 1. Mrs.V.KUMARI SHYLAJA
Aged 61 years,
D/o Vijayamma Thanckachy.
No.136/14 (Janaki), 2nd Floor,
2nd Cross, Ejipura Main Road,
Viveknagar, Bangalore 560047
2 OS No. 26483/2018
2. Mr.S.KANNAN
S/o V.Kumari Shylaja and
Sreekumaran.G
Aged 34 years, No.136/14
(Janaki), 2nd Floor, 2nd Croos,
Ejipura Main Road, Viveknagar,
Bangalore 560047
(By Sri. V.P.K, advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 24.11.2018
Nature of the suit Eviction and
Recovery of possession
Date of Commencement of 25.02.2020
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 20.07.2026
Pronounced
Total Duration Year Month Day
07 07 27
sd/-
( ONKARAPPA.R )
XIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
3 OS No. 26483/2018
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
SCHEDULE A
All the piece and parcel of property bearing BBMP No.
New 14, Old No. 136/15 and 136/16, situated at 2nd Cross,
Ejipura, Viveknagar Post, Bangalore South Taluk, along with
twenty year old residential structure building standing
thereon in ground floor, first floor and 2nd Floor. Ground
and first floor having built area is about 1500 Sq.ft. each.
The 2nd floor is having two living portions each of 600
Sq.ft R.C.C roof, 150 sq.ft. of home office covered with
asbestos roof and 150 Sq.ft of common area. The 2nd floor
North side portion; which is having an area of 600 sq.ft
that is described under Schedule B is excluded from this
schedule A building property.
Building Site
Measuring:
East :50-0.
West :50-0
North :46-0
South :39-0
Bounded as follows
East by :Private property,
West by :30 feet wide road,
4 OS No. 26483/2018
North by :Property no 14 of Uthra Mary,
South by : Property belongs to Manjubai.
SCHEDULE B
Building 2nd floor North side living portion. This
portion is having a living floor area of 600 Sq.ft. with
R.C.C roof. Defendants 1 and 2 occupy the North side living
portion area.
Bounded as follows:
1. North: Building Boundary wall
2. South- South side living portion having a floor space
area of 600 sq.ft. covered with R.C.C roof, where Plaintiff 's
tenant is staying.
3. East: Building Boundary wall
4. West-: Plaintiff Home office with Asbestos roof and open
space with staircase to access building roof top and down
staircase.
: J U D G M E N T :
The plaintiff has filed the suit in against the
defendants for eviction and recovery of possession of
Schedule ‘B’ property from the defendants and for an order
to the defendants to remove their goods and vacate
5 OS No. 26483/2018
schedule B property within two months from the date of
grant of decree.
2. The Plaintiff’s suit in brief is: the Plaintiff is the
absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule
property bearing Khatha; Municipal No. New 14 situated at
2nd Cross, Egipura, Bangaluru 560047; which is described
in detail in the Schedules hereunder and hereinafter referred
as Schedule A (entire building property but excludes
Schedule B portion) and Schedule B (only the portion
occupied by Defendant 1 and 2). Out of the marriage we
have a daughter named S.Dhanya and a Son named
S.Kannan. Daughter done her Engg. Deg. and now aged 37
years (D.O.B-29.6.1981), is working in a Bengaluru I.T firm
and she is living separately with her husband and a child.
Defendant-1 V.Kumari Shylaja is plaintiff’s ex wife. The
plaintiff filed the H.M.O.P 48 of 2007 for divorce under
section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act before the 1st Additional
Sub-Judge, Nagercoil Tamil Nadu. The Learned Judge
granted a decree for divorce. The Respondent in H.M.O.P
No.48 of 2007 filed her first appeal CMA No.16 of 2010
6 OS No. 26483/2018
before the Principal District Judge, Kanyakumari District at
Nagercoil. The Learned Appellate Judge confirmed the
decree of Divorce of the Trial Court. Also she filed M.С.
No.1546 of 2007 before 6th additional Principal Judge family
court, at Bengaluru for restitution of conjugal rights. The
learned Judge dismissed her petition on 29-10-2018.
Defendant-2 named Mr.S.Kannan is our son; aged 34 years
(D.O.B. 23.10.1984); still unmarried and without doing any
work living in an irresponsible way and residing with his
mother Defendant 1 in my building portion at 2nd floor
Northern side living portion, which is having an area of 600
sq.ft is described under Schedule B. Defendant 2’s physical
and mental health conditions are getting worsened due to
his laziness and computer addiction. He simply obeys his
mother and don’t have any contact with outside world. This
Schedule B portion is a part of plaintiff’s main building and
all remaining portions are in plaintiff’s full possession and
enjoyment, which are detailed under Schedule A. The
plaintiff purchased first the property schedule-A and B
house site as per sale deed using his salary savings he got;
while working in Iran. Subsequently with the money the
7 OS No. 26483/2018
plaintiff earned by working in Kuwait, the plaintiff
constructed the house in that site. Both the defendants 1
and 2 are unlawfully trying to prevent me from enjoying
the peaceful possession of the plaintiff self-earned property
and hence they have to be evicted from the plaintiff
Schedule B property for my peaceful possession. The
Respondent in H.M.O.P No. 48 of 2007 preferred the second
appeal CMSA No.45 of 2010 along with two petitions;
M.P.No.1 of 2010 (for interim direction for payment
Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance for her and
children and another sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation)
and M.P.No.2 of 2010 (for stay of operation of the decree
for divorce); before the Hon’ble High Court Bench of Madras
High Court in Madurai. Based on her above petitions in
2010, four weeks of interim stay of operation of the decree
of divorce was granted. It was not further extended. The
Honorable High Court Judge who heard our final arguments
reserved the judgments on 15th December, 2015 and without
pronouncing judgments went on retirement in May 2017.
Thus second appeal is still pending before the Madurai
Bench of High Court at Madurai. The plaintiff worked for
8 OS No. 26483/2018
about 3 years in Iran and 9 years in Kuwait. At the age of
56 after returning for good from abroad the Defendant No.1
realized that the plaintiff no more a money making
machine. She gave no value to the plaintiff’s words and
started abusing him. She gave false police complaint against
the plaintiff for adultery and tried hard to put him in jail
by engaging lawyers. She sold the 6 acre rubber estate the
plaintiff raised in her name without his consent and with
the help of her brother and thus insulted the plaintiff hard
work and ruined his life long savings. She insisted for her
permanent residence in Bangalore and refused to accompany
me to settle in our native place near Nagercoil, Tamil
Nadu. She filed suits in Bangalore Courts and many
complaints in police station; while the plaintiff settled in his
native place, which is about 10 Km. away from her native
place. Her aim is to make the plaintiff suffer by traveling
often from Kanyakumari Dist. to Bangalore. Thus our
relationship got broken once for all since 2006, i.e more
than 12 years. According to Defendant No.1 statement, in
2006 the Defendant-2 joined in Computer Engg. Diploma
course and did not complete his course to safeguard his
9 OS No. 26483/2018
mother. i.e. since 2006 till now (i.e for about 12 years),
Defendant No.2 remains most of the time locked inside his
living portion in Schedule B, seeing Internet and his only
companion is a ferocious dog. From this it can be seen that
daily he is hooked up with the Broadband Internet service
for more than 20 hours (671/30 Hrs.). Even tenants staying
in the plaintiff’s building never saw him years together. To
the knowledge of plaintiff nobody saw any of his interaction
with outside people, since many years. Few months back
the plaintiff heard from one person that he goes for
morning walk around 5 A.M. But only Defendants can
confirm this. Also Defendant No.1 never welcome others
inside her portion. About few months back the plaintiff got
an opportunity to see Son along with Women Activists. The
plaintiff brought those Activists to see his condition so as to
save him. First Defendant No.1 did not let them inside her
portion. Only after their hard persuasions she allowed son
Kannan to come outside and, talk to them. His condition is
very pathetic beyond description and alarming. He is tall
and bulky and having light black skin. Now his lips have
turned reddish without exposure to sunlight (vitamin D
10 OS No. 26483/2018
deficiency) and developed a bend in his shoulder and most
of his hair turned gray. About 7 years back his condition
was normal and not like this. He was having very good
knowledge in computer systems even at his high school
days. Now he is 34 years old still he is unmarried. If his
present condition continues no woman will come forward to
marry him. Thus by insisting her stay in Bengaluru,
defendant No.1 causes son’s body and mental growth
retardation, which is clearly a case of domestic violence. It
gives the plaintiff lot of mental pain; when the plaintiff
think that in our civilized society a mother is able do such
a crime against her own son and she is not answerable
according to law, whereas his father is a silent spectator.
To save him so far the plaintiff took all sorts of effort by
bringing his pitiable condition to the notice of her
Advocates, women right activities, police and Karnataka
State Human Rights Commission (KSHRC) and her relatives.
When her Advocates advised her she told them not to
interfere in her affairs. When the plaintiff contacted KHRC
asked him to send the complaint through e-mail and
accordingly the plaintiff send his help request via e-mail
11 OS No. 26483/2018
and they send their reply by e-mail expressing their
inability to help the plaintiff. Police also informed the
plaintiff that they couldn’t interfere in such family matters.
Whenever daughter or relatives and known persons tried to
correct the situation, she refused to heed none of their
advice and told them they are only trying to support the
plaintiff and not her. Unfortunately Son’s attachment with
his mother is so deep, that so far he is not able to realize
that what his mother is doing in fact destroying him. If the
plaintiff don’t take proper action now, in future the plaintiff
may have repent and hence the plaintiff cannot wait any
more and that is why the plaintiff filed this suit before this
Court for justice. Defendant No.1 is misusing her right to
stay in building mainly to take revenge on the plaintiff and
to support her brothers. Hence as soon as possible to save
son’s own life, he has to be evicted along with his mother
and settle them in our native place. Even though Defendant
No.1 does not require or want any money from the
plaintiff’s end; in order to save the precious life of son and
to get him a married life without any further delay, the
plaintiff offered an alternate residence at his cost in her or
12 OS No. 26483/2018
the plaintiff’s native place, which are only 10 Km. apart.
But so far the Defendants refused all the plaintiff’s offers
and suggestions. As an adult son Defendant-2 does not have
any legal right to occupy the plaintiff’s self-acquired
Schedule-B property and reside there against the plaintiff’s
consent and wish. His present life style could be corrected
only by shifting his residence to our native place and for
that he is to be evicted according to law. Hence the
plaintiff sent a legal notice giving him a chance to reply on
8.9.2017. So far Defendant 2 did not bother to send a reply
or inform anything to the plaintiff. They don’t have any
difficulty to comply with the plaintiff’s requirements. Their
non-response shows that they are not interested in shifting
their residences to our native place. During the plaintiff’s
entire professional life the plaintiff had after plaintiff’s
marriage (i.e before plaintiff’s retirement age 56); the
plaintiff’s worked and stayed with Defendant No.1 in
number of places for many years i.e in Kodayar 3 years,
Tuticorin 8 years, Bombay 3 years and in Hyderabad 4
years. But before the plaintiff’s retirement the plaintiff
worked only for about 2 months in Bengaluru. Defendant
13 OS No. 26483/2018
No.1 already accepted this fact during her deposition in
divorce petition trial court. She followed the plaintiff
wherever he worked. Had she got a bit of real love towards
him and family she would have agreed to come with him to
our native place for permanent residence at his retirement
age. Our mother tongue is Malayalam and even don’t know
to talk in Kannada. Before starting to work in foreign
countries, the plaintiff could not transfer the plaintiff’s
children to schools in our native places because of Tamil
and Hindi language study problems. Hence the plaintiff took
a flat for rent to stay in Bengaluru only to ensure a smooth
education to them. The plaintiff never planed for permanent
family residence in Bengaluru. Her refusal to shift residence
caused further damage to our strained relation, which led to
our permanent separation. Hence Defendant No.1 cannot
assert her claim that she would reside only in the plaintiff’s
Bengaluru house saying that she has already settled in
Bengaluru. The plaintiff’s building in Bengaluru is not her
matrimonial or shared home and now she is divorced. She
does not have any relatives in Bengaluru to get all sorts of
supports required for a happy family life in our society.
14 OS No. 26483/2018
Defendant No.1 got 4 brothers and 2 elder sisters all her
brothers are settled in and around their fathers family house
and her two sisters are residing in Trivandrum, that is
about 35 Km form our native places. Defendant-1 got a big
share of property through a UHF partition deed. The
Defendant-1 doesn’t have any evidence to claim any right
on the plaintiff house property or spent any money from
her end to construct the plaintiff house. She considered the
plaintiff only as a money making machine. By misusing the
authorization the plaintiff gave to her for money withdrawal
from the plaintiff’s bank a/c, she transferred lot of
plaintiff’s money from plaintiff’s NRI and other bank
accounts. The plaintiff came to know that using money
diverted from the plaintiff bank a/c and income she got
from the 6-acre estate and other properties, she purchased
additional properties from her brothers, that are their share
of family partition deed and ornaments and also helped her
relatives and friends. Defendant No.1 also sent the plaintiff’s
money for improving her properties by way of drilling bore
well and constructing sheds and boundary retaining walls
etc. Those evidences the plaintiff had got by way of her
15 OS No. 26483/2018
hand written notes in Malayalam language were submitted
as evidence before the trial court in divorce petition
H.M.O.P 48 of 2007. Defendant got more than Rupees 22
lakhs (according to records, whereas actual is more than Rs.
50 lakhs) by selling property the plaintiff purchased in her
name. Defendant-1’s sources of income known to the
plaintiff other than interest she gets from her Bank Deposits
are listed as follows. In a suit for partition filed as
O.S.No.362/91 on the file of Additional District Court,
Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari Dist.; she was allotted the
following properties in the Final Decree. a. Coconut garden
land, 35 cents in S.No.3274 in Colachal Villlage. This
property is worth more than 35 lakhs. The monthly income
is not less than Rs.2000/-. b. 1 Acre 60 cents Garden land
in Survey No.626/18-1 of Lakshmipuram. The monthly
income is not less than Rs.5000/-. (Defendant 1 purchased
75 cents beside this land from her eldest brother for whom
she sent demand drafts from my bank accounts and I have
the proof). This land is situated beside an irrigation canal
and road. This prime land is in residential area and can be
converted into house sites. Present value of this land is
16 OS No. 26483/2018
minimum 4.7 Crores (= 235 cents x Rs. 2,00,000). c.2 Acres
10 Cents Coconut garden lands in S.No.347/6 of Colachal
Village. She admitted during evidence in divorce suit
H.M.O.P 48 of 2007 that she is getting a monthly income of
Rs.7500/-. (This is a beautiful prime land adjacent to
Colachal Harbor Main Road suitable for posh residential
sites. Value of this land is 5.25 Crores (= 210 cents x
Rs.2,50,000). She knows the fact that her father gave this
land to her only because of my request. Other wise she
would have got some other much less value Agri. Land.
d.Coconut garden measuring 15 cents in S.NO. 142/14 of
Colachal Village. This property worth-8 lakhs and monthly
income is not less than Rs. 1500/-. Defendant 1 herself
agreed in her affidavit before Honorable Sub-court
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari Dist. Tamil Tamil Nadu that even
before her marriage she has been in possession of valuable
properties and as such she has no necessity to utilize the
plaintiff’s money. But in order to ruin the plaintiff’s life
long savings during the plaintiff’s old age, without the
plaintiff’s consent and with her brother’s support she sold
the rubber estate, that the plaintiff cultivated in her name
17 OS No. 26483/2018
in his native place. That rubber estate was costing more
than 70 lakhs at that time. She deposited whatever sale
amount she got in her bank accounts around 26-7-2007.
Because of her high income and wealth she got, she is not
bothering to look after her own properties; (that were also
improved by using my amount) by staying in her native
place. Also she does not want son also to look after family
properties even though he is not having any work in
Bengaluru and his body health getting deteriorated due to
absence of body movements and non-exposure to sunlight.
As the plaintiff detailed in para 15 b and c, her two prime
properties alone worth more than 10 Crores, in 2004.
During the year 2005, the plaintiff expressed his readiness
to take necessary action to construct a house for us in her
land and divide these 4 Acre 35 Cents into residential sites
and sell and invest in her or childrens name in real estate
to generate more income. First she accepted his proposal,
but latter on she refused saying, the plaintiff should not
interfere in her affairs and asked the plaintiff to mind his
own business. Thus she never co-operated with him to take
action for the betterment of plaintiff’s family and mentally
18 OS No. 26483/2018
never considered the plaintiff as part of her family. She
followed only her brother’s opinion. The simple reason is if
Defendant No.1 shifts residence, then they won’t be able to
enjoy her properties. Unfortunately she still believes in her
brothers ill conceived honesty rather than her children’s
welfare and that is why even at 61 she says she don’t want
to shift her residence to our native place in Tamil Nadu.
Now Son is 34 years old and the plaintiff expected him to
take responsibility to look after all family properties. But he
is doing nothing, but destroying himself. The plaintiff took
Govt. educational loan from Bank and completed his B.E
degree and worked hard day and night in deserts to earn
money. In spite of all this if both Son and his mother shift
residence to our native place, then if they want any help,
the plaintiff ready to extend all possible help to them. But
unfortunately both Defendants are disobedient and they
don’t have any regard for Hindu family way of life. Hence
both Defendants have to be evicted in accordance with law.
Fearing the Defendant-1 harassment by way of police
complaint and her utterances of filthy words against the
plaintiff; with no other choice to save the plaintiff’s life on
19 OS No. 26483/2018
20-7-2005; the plaintiff permanently vacated his house and
stayed in a rented house in Bangalore and then to the
plaintiff’s brother’s house in his native place. In his absence
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 dumped lot of unwanted things
(including dog’s shit) inside his home office room in 2nd
floor. She damaged the home office roof, false ceilings and
carpeted floors and caused water leakages through first and
second floor slab ceilings and walls. Water collected inside
the room and thus all valuable materials and costly carpets
and books have got perished. Defendant No.1 is growing a
big roof top garden and damaged the rooftop. Hence the
whole building got damaged due to water leaks through
floor slabs. The condition of his building can be seen from
attached photos Document No.1. She is using precious
drinking water for gardening and purposely wasting drinking
water and causing increased water bill, that is nearing
Rs.5000/- per month. If she is allowed to stay in my
building, the whole building will be further damaged
beyond repair and not only that the building floor ceiling
may collapse due to rusting of steel rods embedded inside
the RCC slab and if accident happens only the plaintiff will
20 OS No. 26483/2018
be held responsible. Since she is very rude the plaintiff
cannot remove this garden. The plaintiff even afraid to talk
to her. If the plaintiff do then definitely she will file
another police complaint. The plaintiff building is already
20 year old and requires urgent major repair works and to
do the same Defendant No.1 has to be evicted as she is not
allowing others inside. Even to carry out simple pumping
and electrical work at present the plaintiff struggling a lot.
Dfendant No.1 is harassing the plaintiff tenants by breaking
pvc water supply pipes, damages water level control floats
(causing water over flow from tanks), removing water from
their water tanks for gardening and preventing them from
going roof top for drying cloths etc.. Tenants staying in my
building are regularly facing several such criminal incidents.
She does all these saying them that she is the plaintiff’s
wife. She also makes walls dirty by scribbled writing
declaring that she has filed O.S No. 170 in family court etc.
Based on complaints from tenants staying in my building on
13th July 2017, all went with a complaint to Viveknagar
Police station; expecting some Police help to solve problems
they faced from the Defendant No.1. At that time Defendant
21 OS No. 26483/2018
No.1 also submitted a fabricated complaint to Police against
modifying water pipes. Police refused to register our
complaints saying, “cannot involve in civil matters”.
Whenever Defendant-1 is in police station she acts as if she
is very poor, innocent and obedient lady. As she does not
have any other work; she does the above activities as if it
is her daily work. The plaintiff suffering from heart
problems and diabetes, which requires controlled food and
regular medication for survival. Due to her continued stay
in Bengaluru, the plaintiff forced to travel long distance and
faces food and medication problems. One of my younger
brothers died last month due to heart problems and another
elder brother just escaped from paralysis caused by heart
attack and only due to timely intervention he could survive.
Nowadays, the plaintiff feel very tired whenever the
plaintiff travel long time. The plaintiff feel that in near
future the plaintiff won’t be able to travel every month to
Bangalore and back to his residence. Also the plaintiff don’t
have anybody in Bangalore to render urgent medical
support during my old age. At this rate the plaintiff may
have to sell or reverse mortgage his building; which is his
22 OS No. 26483/2018
life long savings and then get admitted into an old age
home. Hence the plaintiff humbly beg court to ensure his
fundament rights to live with dignity and ensure a peaceful
possession of plaintiff’s property by evicting the Defendants
from the plaintiff self-acquired property in accordance with
law. It is well settled law that one shall be free to evict the
divorced wife from his self-acquired property in accordance
with law. Divorced wife’s prayer for restraining the
petitioner from alienating the suit property never accepted
in Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgments. One cannot evict
forcefully a divorced wife from his house as she got right
which are available to a tenant; but she can be evicted in
accordance with law. The plaintiff very much scared of the
Defendant-1 as she is using filthy words even in the
presence of other tenants. Neighbors could hear her loud
abusive words whenever the plaintiff visit his house.
Frequently threatening him with Police complaints and
lowering his dignity. Both of them gave Police complaints
against each other several times, which are of no use to put
her mouth shut. Hence in order to ensure peaceful
possession of his house Defendant-1 has to be evicted from
23 OS No. 26483/2018
his house in accordance with law. It is evident that the
plaintiff’s building is damaged due to Defendants violent
activities. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 do not have any
independent right therein to continue to stay. The health
condition of son is alarming and damages to building are
now very severe. Hence without evicting Defendants it is
not possible to restore the normal condition of life of son
and to carry out any kind of repair works of his building.
Also she is capable of making son’s condition, his building
condition and my peace of mind at his old age worse if she
continues her stay in his building. Always she got her
brothers support for all kind of her activities. She believes
in whatever decisions her brothers’ take and vice versa.
Hence it is more appropriate for the Defendant-1 to shift
residence to her native place, where she got her 4 brothers
support and son’s condition will also improve and there by
plaintiff’s peace of mind and recovery of possession of his
property portion. The Defendant-1 main aim is to deprive
income the plaintiff getting from tenants as rent and inflict
mental torture to the plaintiff. She continues to cause
financial losses and loss of reputation and creating lot of
24 OS No. 26483/2018
problems to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s Son Defendant No.2
simply obeys only his mother’s words and destroying
himself; which is causing lot of mental pain to him. Both
son and daughter never considered the plaintiff’s presence
worth and gave no value to his words; this is mainly due to
fearing of their mother’s mouth. The plaintiff is a Senior
Citizen aged 71 years. Hence under “The Maintenance and
Welfare Of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 Chapter V,
Protection of life and property of senior citizen.” The
plaintiff desperately need protection from them. Hence the
plaintiff humbly beg court to order protection by evicting
his son Kannan and ex-wife in accordance with law. The
cause of action arouse on 16 th August 2018. On that day the
plaintiff along with women activists went to Viveknagar
police station at Bangalore at his request and visited 2nd
floor portion, where both Defendant-1 and 2 are staying.
But police refused to get involved in our dispute saying, in
civil matters they cannot involve. KSHRC also expressed
their inability to help the plaintiff in writing. Hence the
plaintiff left with no choice other than approaching this
Honorable Family Court for Justice. The subject matter is
25 OS No. 26483/2018
within the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Family Court. The value
of the unit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is
as indicated in the valuation slip and proper court fee is
paid thereon separately. Defendant No.1 herein filed O.S.
No.170 of 2008 before Hon’ble 1 st additional Principal Judge
family court, at Bangalore praying for permanent injunction
to restrain the plaintiff from alienating the Schedule A and
B properties. This suit is still in evidence stage. The suit
schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this
Court and as such this Court has got territorial and
pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Hence, the plaintiff
sought for decreed the suit.
3. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their
counsel and they chosen to filed their written-statement.
Wherein the written-statement they contended, the suit filed
by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes of law, it is
filed with the malafide intention and with ulterior motive to
knock of the suit schedule property from the defendant in
which defendant has invested her earnings from the rubber
plantation in her native. The above suit is not maintainable
either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be
26 OS No. 26483/2018
dismissed in lime with exemplary costs. The above suit is
false, frivolous, vexatious, scandalous, made with a view to
harass the defendant and hold her for a ransom. The
plaintiff who is the husband of the defendant is very
avaricious, unjust, inhuman who wants to make unjust
enrichment at the cost of defendant, The above suit lacks in
material particulars and the same is vague and bald. The
defendant was married to the plaintiff on 9th of June 1976,
as per the Hindu rights and customs at the state of Tamil
Nadu, Kanyakumari District. Out of the marriage between
the plaintiff and the defendant they have two children by
name Ms.S.Dhanya, (Daughter), Mr.Kannan, (Son). The
plaintiff and the defendant were living together for the past
30 years as husband and wife and were living a peaceful
and happy life. The plaintiff and the defendant had been
living along with their children at No.136/15,, New
No.14,2nd Cross, Grape Garden, Ejipura, Bangalore 560 047.
The defendant that in the year 2006 the behavior and the
attitude of the plaintiff towards the defendant had started
changing from bad to worse. The plaintiff had started
abusing the defendant and harassing her verbally and
27 OS No. 26483/2018
physically for the reasons best known to him. In the month
of august 2006 the plaintiff had left the house and started
living separately on his own inspite of the children pleading
with him to come and live with them. The plaintiff did not
oblige to the pleadings of the defendant and chose to live
on his own separately. The plaintiff had visited his native
Kanyakumari District at Tamil Nadu in the month of
October and came back to Bangalore. One week after the
plaintiff returning to Bangalore the defendant had come to
know that the plaintiff had got married to a lady by name
Ms. Binu on 18th of October 2006 at Kanyakumari, Tamil
Nadu and started living with her as husband and wife at
the above mentioned address. In the month of February
2007 an insurance policy card was sent to the defendants
address which was received by the defendant. When the
defendant had looked in to the cover she was shocked to
know that in the insurance policy the plaintiff had declared
himself as the husband of the said lady Ms. Binu with
whom he got married. After going through the insurance
policy it was confirmed that the plaintiff had got married to
the lady by name Binu and was living with her as husband
28 OS No. 26483/2018
and wife. When the defendant had questioned the plaintiff
with regard to the said marriage with the lady the plaintiff’s
answer was not convincing. The defendant had filed a
petition before the family court for restitution of conjugal
rights and the same came to be disposed before the Hon’ble
second additional family court under M.C.No.1546/2007, in
the said case in spite of pleading that a case is pending at
Madurai bench of Madras High court under CMSA (MD)
45/2010 against the lower court judgment, the family court
at Bangalore had granted divorce of the marriage between
the plaintiff and the defendant. The appeal case filed at
Madurai bench of Madras High court under CMSA (MD)
45/2010 was heard on 19-03-2019 and the stay has been
extended for further period of three months hence it is
evident that the order passed by the lower court in Tamil
Nadu. The plaintiff is trying to alienate or dispose of the
schedule mentioned property in a hasty manner in favour of
some other third party. Even though the sale deed
pertaining to the schedule mentioned property stands in the
name of the plaintiff considerable portion of the sale
proceeds was paid by the defendant which she received
29 OS No. 26483/2018
from the earning of the rubber plantation at her native. The
defendant that plaintiff is planning to sell the schedule
mentioned property and go way to Tamil Nadu and settle
there along with the lady to whom he got married illegally.
If the plaintiff alienates or encumbers the schedule
mentioned property to some other party the defendant shall
be deprived of her legitimate right on the suit schedule
mentioned property. The defendant that the plaintiff is
making hectic effort to dispose of or encumber the
properties without the knowledge of the defendant. If the
plaintiff encumbers the property, the defendant shall be
deprived of the suit schedule property which was purchased
by investing the defendants earning which she earned out of
the rubber plantation earnings from her share at the native.
All the averments mentioned against the defendant is false
and the plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same. The
plaintiff has not come before the court with clean hands,
but has concealed the fact that the case appeal case is
pending at the Madurai bench of Madras High court under
CMSA (MD) 45/2010 pertaining to their marriage. The
defendant is the wife of the plaintiff and she has inherent
30 OS No. 26483/2018
right and lawfully entitled to reside at the suit schedule
property. The plaintiff has not approached this court with
clean hands on the other hand he has approached this court
with malefic intention to harass the defendant and knock of
the suit schedule property in order to make unlawful gains
at the cost of the defendant. Therefore the defendant prays
to dismiss the plaint.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings my
predecessor in office has framed the issues in below:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that
he is the absolute owner in
possession and enjoyment of the
‘A’ schedule property and ‘B’
schedule property is part of ‘A’
schedule property and he is an
absolute owner of ‘A’ and ‘B’
schedule properties?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that
the defendant No.1 his ex-wife and
defendant No.2 is their son and
both the defendant Nos.1 and 2
have unlawfully trying to prevent
31 OS No. 26483/2018him from enjoying his suit schedule
properties and they are evicted him
from the ‘B’ schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that
he is entitle for the relief of
possession of ‘B’ schedule property
as prayed for?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that
he is entitled for the relief sought
for?
5. What order or decree?
5. In support of the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff
himself examined as PW1 and he got marked documents at
Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. Further the plaintiff also examined one
C.Immanuel as PW2 and one K.Annadurai as PW3. On the
other hand on behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1
examined herself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D13.
Further defendants also examined one Mr.S.Kannan as DW2.
6. Heard the argument on both sides. Counsel for
the defendants filed the written argument. Perused the
records.
32 OS No. 26483/2018
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Negative
Issue No.5 : As per final order for the
following:
:R E A S O N S:
8. Issue Nos.1 to 4 : Issue Nos.1 to 4 overlapping
with each other, hence I would like to taken up issue No.1
to 4 in conjointly for the common discussion also to avoid
repetition of the facts and evidence.
9. As could be seen from the deposition of PW1,
PW1 reiterated the averments of plaint. In support of the
case of the plaintiff, PW1 got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P21
documents. Ex.P1 is the letter sent by the tenant to the
plaintiff. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the water bill and receipt.
Ex.P4 is the certified copy of counter statement. Ex.P5 is
the certified copy of the deposition of 1 st defendant in MOP
No.48/07. Ex.P6 is the compromise petition in OS
33 OS No. 26483/2018
No.362/1991. Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 are the notice given to
Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and postal
receipts. Ex.P10 is the legal notice issued to defendant No.2.
Ex.P11 and Ex.P12 are the copy of plaint in OS
No.171/2008. Ex.P13 is the decree in CMA 16/2010, Ex.P14
is decree in MC 1546/2007. Ex.P15 is the original sale deed
dated 27.09.1994. Ex.P16 is the khata certificate. Ex.P17
khata extract. Ex.P18 Tax paid receipt. Ex.P19 is the CD.
Ex.P20 is the phone bill. Ex.P21 is the notice confronted to
DW1.
10. From the deposition of PW2, it evidence PW2
know the plaintiff and the defendants, their family, native
place and also financial background as where their mother
is residing is very near to their native place. Further, PW2
deposed he know their son Mr.S.Kannan well who is now
38 years old and unmarried. He was very good in computer
system software and its application even during his school
going day. Outside people used to call him to attend
computer repair works. In 2008 he was admitted to
St.John’s medical college hospital for intervertebral Disc
34 OS No. 26483/2018
Prolapse operation, doctors told that he self inflicted this
problem due to his bad life style. At that time defendant
No.1 called PW2 for help from the hospital. PW2 gave
those helps she asked for. PW2 know well that he was
keeping very good health till 2006. He became an internet
addict and subsequently throughout the day he used to
remain inside the house and his mother never allowed him
to mingle with others. Her then lawyer Mr.Ravindran even
offered a job for him to prevent him from always remaining
inside the building. When he pointed his all such bad life
style to his mother, she did not like. From that day
onwards his mother never allowed PW2 to talk to
Mr.Kannan directly or over mobile till date and PW2 think
this may be due to her fear that he would convince Mr.
Kannan to follow his father’s advice and get his help. He
himself destroying his own life. PW2 know well that
defendant 1’s parent’s family is very rich and most of her
family members are residing at her own native place.
Kannan’s life can be saved only by shifting his residence to
his native place. PW2 knew about several problems the
defendant 1 created to Mr.Sreekumaran and prevented him
35 OS No. 26483/2018
from keeping the building in good contrition. She has not
allowed mason and plumber’s to carry out repair works. She
has grown a big roof top garden and destroyed the R.C.C
roof top tiles and this caused water leak at several places.
Many R.C.C roof steel rods already got rusted. Hence the
building requires major refurbishment civil works. The
building life can be saved only by shifting defendant’s
residence to her native place.
11. Also as could be seen from the deposition of
PW3, since PW3 came to Bengaluru to attend his work he
know 1st defendant reside in the ‘B’ schedule property and
PW3 do not about 2nd defendant and 2nd defendant as he
never come out of his living position and talk to any other
persons. further PW3 deposed, defendant-1 creating lot of
problems to Sreekumaran and preventing him to keep the
building in healthy contrition. She is not allowing him and
plumber’s to carry out repair works. She has grown a big
roof top garden with big trees and unwanted plants grown
in many heavy pots. The defendant No.1 used corporation
supplied drinking water to grow that garden and caused
36 OS No. 26483/2018
heavy loss to Sreekumaran. Roof top garden already
destroyed the roof top slab and leak has developed through
R.C slabs in several places as roof was not built to
withstand water storage and VENKATESHAY caused rusting
of steels embedded in the R.C.C floor slab, Roof top
R.C.C.slab got Cracked at several places. During the last
rainy season a portion of the parapet wall (about fest in
length) has fallen down. By the grace of God at that time
no one was standing on the ground floor. Thus a grave
accident did not happen. PW3 along with 5 workers worked
for about two weeks to carry out that damaged portion
repair works. Finally only fer months back with police
protection PW3 along with 4 other workers removed that
roof top garden. But the defendant No.1 again started
growing similar roof top garden in a haphazard manner and
again trying to cause further damage to the building roof
top and wasting drinking water. Hence PW3 swear, only by
evicting the defendant No.1 the building could be well
maintained and prevent accidents.
37 OS No. 26483/2018
12. In against the case of the plaintiff, defendant
No.1 also examined herself as DW1 and it could be seen
from the deposition of DW1, wherein the deposition of
DW1, DW1 reiterated the averments of written-statement. In
support of the case of defendants, DW1 got marked Ex.D1
confronted to PW1 – assets and liabilities. Ex.D2 is the judgment
decree in OS No.170/2008, Ex.D3 is the judgment in CMSA
45/2010. Ex.D4 and Ex.D5 are the police complaint dated
29.05.2016 and 05.07.017. E.xD6 is the original cash bill. Ex.D7
is the original note book. Ex.D8 is the office copy of police
complaint. Ex.D9 to Ex.D13 are five self account chits.
13. Further, it could also be seen from the deposition
of DW2, the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 were living
together for the past 30 years as husband and wife and
were living a peaceful and happy life. They have been
living at No.136/15. New No.14, 2nd Cross, Grape Garden,
Ejipura main road, Viveknagar, Bangalore 560 047. The
Plaintiff had started abusing and harassing Defendant No. 1
and him verbally and physically for the reasons best known
to him. And in the month of August 2006, the Plaintiff left
the house and started living separately on his own despite
38 OS No. 26483/2018
them pleading with him to come and live with him. The
Plaintiff did not oblige our pleadings and chose to live on
his own separately deserting them. The Plaintiff has
subjected Defendant no. 1/DW2’s mother to utmost cruelty
by torturing her mentally and subjecting her to physical
cruelty as well. Further the Plaintiff surpassed the level of
cruelty by abandoning her and her children without any
justification and support to survive the livelihood and other
necessities. The Plaintiff had visited his native Kanyakumari
District at Tamil Nadu in the month of October and came
back to Bangalore. One week after the Plaintiff returned to
Bangalore, they came to know that the Plaintiff had got
married to a lady by name Ms. Binu on 18 th of October
2006 at Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu and started living with
her as husband and wife. In the month of February 2007,
an insurance policy card was sent to their address which
was received by Defendant no.1, and it came to her notice
that in the insurance policy the Plaintiff had declared
himself as the husband of the said lady, Ms. Binu, to whom
he got married. The Plaintiff had abandoned him and
Defendant No. 1 and has waived off all his obligations
39 OS No. 26483/2018
towards them leaving the place and settling in another
place. The plaintiff is trying to alienate or dispose of the
Suit Schedule property in a hasty manner in favour of some
other third party. Even though the sale deed pertaining to
the Suit Schedule property stands in the name of the
Plaintiff, a considerable portion of the sale proceeds was
paid by Defendant No. 1, which she received from the
earnings of the rubber plantation in her native. The Plaintiff
is planning to sell the suit schedule property and go back to
Tamil Nadu and settle there, along with the lady to whom
he got married illegally. If the Plaintiff alienates or
encumbers the suit schedule property to some other party,
the Defendant will be deprived of legitimate right on the
suit schedule property.
14. So from the above material, as per the plaintiff,
‘A’ schedule property is the mother property and ‘B’
schedule property is its sister schedule property. The
plaintiff be the owner of the ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property.
The plaintiff is the husband and 1st defendant was his wife.
Out of their wedlock the plaintiff and 1 st defendant blessed
40 OS No. 26483/2018
2nd defendant and one daughter by name S.Dhanya.
S.Dhanya lived separately after she got married. Due to the
family dispute in between the plaintiff and 1 st defendant,
plaintiff have filed HMOP 48/2007 for divorce under section
13 of the Hindu marriage act at before 1 st addl. Sub-Judge
Nagercoil Tamil Nadu and the plaintiff got the decree for
divorce, same decree for divorce also confirmed by
Prl.District Judge, Kanyakumari District in CMA 16/2010. 1 st
defendant have also filed M.C. 1546/2007 filed under
section 9 of Hindu marriage act for restitution of conjugal
right, the same petition was dismissed on 29.10.2018. 2 nd
defendant though he attained the age of 34 years he has no
such of definite work and he is one of the irresponsible but
he reside in ‘B’ schedule property and his physical and
mental condition was worsened due to his laziness and
computer addiction. Further, 2nd defendant is under the
control of 1st defendant. The plaintiff purchased the ‘A’ and
‘B’ schedule property site from his salary earned from his
work at Iran. Subsequently from his salary earned from his
work at Kuwait, the plaintiff constructed his house. Both
the defendants are unlawfully trying to restrained the
41 OS No. 26483/2018
Plaintiff from enjoying the suit schedule property. In
against the judgment and decree passed in HMOP 48/07, 1 st
defendant preferred the 2nd appeal at before Honorable High
Court of Madhurai Bench along with two petition, wherein
the 2nd appeal filed in M.P. No.2/2010, it granted interim
maintenance of Rs.30,000/- to 1st defendant and her
children along with litigation charges of Rs.50,000/-.
Though stay the operation of decree for divorce for four
weeks, the stay have not further extended and the same 2 nd
appeal in MP 1/2010 and MP 2/2010 still pending for
disposal at before Honorable High Court of Madras, Madurai
Bench. Even the plaintiff returned to India after he worked
about 3 years in Iran and 9 years in Kuwait at the age of
56 years, 1st defendant disrespected the plaintiff with reason
no more money with the Plaintiff. 1 st defendant sold 6 acre
rubber estate as it purchased by the plaintiff in her name
without consent of the plaintiff. 1st defendant insisted the
plaintiff to reside in Bengaluru only and 1st defendant not
ready to come to the native place of plaintiff, namely the
village near Nagercoil, Tamilnadu. 1st defendant is have the
habit to filed the complaint and suits in Bengaluru with
42 OS No. 26483/2018
intention to put the plaintiff into travel from his native to
Bengaluru frequently. 2nd defendant locked inside his living
portion in ‘B’ schedule property and he looked up with
Broad band internet service for more than 20 hours. Few
months back it heard by the plaintiff, 2nd defendant use to
go for walk at morning 5.00am and 1 st defendant never
allowed any one individual into ‘B’ schedule property. A
few months back, however the plaintiff made attempt to see
his son along with women activists, but the 1 st defendant
did not allow them also. Further, in persuasions of the
women activists, 1st defendant allowed them to see 2 nd
defendant and they noticed to the plaintiff, 2 nd defendant
health was very pathetic due to non exposure to sunlight,
hence 1st defendant it cause 2nd defendant body and mental
growth retardation which caused violence. In this regard the
plaintiff lodged the complaint at before Karnataka State
Human right commission, 1st defendant misusing her right
to stay in building mainly to take revenge in against the
plaintiff. Hence, to give the life of 2 nd defendant it need to
evicted 1st defendant from ‘B’ schedule property. Further,
the plaintiff under take to provide alternative residence at
43 OS No. 26483/2018
the plaintiff’s cost and near the native place of the plaintiff.
But, the defendants refused all the offer of the plaintiff.
Since, ‘B’ schedule property is the self acquired property
and without consent of the plaintiff, defendants have no
right to continue in the possession of ‘B’ schedule property.
Hence, the plaintiff issued legal notice on them and it
demanded the defendants, to vacated the ‘B’ schedule
property. Despite, no reply it issued by the defendants. 1st
defendant always followed the plaintiff where the plaintiff
was working by different places Kodayur, Tuticorn, Bombay,
Hydrabad and finally at Bengaluru. 1 st defendant in all time
undertake to reside along with the plaintiff at the native
place of the plaintiff, the plaintiff could not transfer his
children to school at his native place because of problems
with Tamil and Hindi language. Hence, the plaintiff took a
flat for rent to stay in Bengaluru only to ensure a smooth
education to them. Suit schedule property is not
matrimonial or shared house of 1 st defendant. 1st defendant
does not have any evidence to claim any right on suit
schedule property or she has not spent any money from her
own. From the salary of the plaintiff and it transferred to
44 OS No. 26483/2018
the account of 1st defendant, 1st defendant purchased 6 acre
rubber plant estate along with other properties. 1 st
defendant got her share of partition from her parents in
pursuant to a suit on file of OS No.362/91. 1 st defendant
harassed the plaintiff by lodging the police complaint and
by abusing in filthy language. Accordingly, the plaintiff
vacated his house and stayed in the rented house in
Bengaluru and then to his brother’s house in his native. 1 st
defendant is harassing the tenants of the plaintiff by
breaking PVC water supply pipes, removing water from the
water tank, the plaintiff’s tenants facing several such
criminal incidents. 1st defendant also make walls dirty by
scribbled writing declaring that she has filed the suit in OS
No.170/2008 in family court. Even lodged the complaint in
against 1st defendant by the tenant of the plaintiff,
Viveknagar police issued NOC, stating the issue is in
relating to nature of civil right. The plaintiff suffered by the
problems of heart and diabetes and it required of controlled
food and medicine regularly. It well settled law, one
should be free to evict the divorced wife from his self
acquired property in accordance with law. Divorced wife ‘s
45 OS No. 26483/2018
prayer for restoration of plaintiff from acquiring the suit
schedule property never accepted in Hon’ble Supreme Court
judgment. Once cannot evict forcefully a divorced wife from
his house as she got right which are avoidable to a tenant,
but she can be evicted in accordance with law. Suit
schedule property is damaged due to violent activity,
neither 1st defendant nor 2nd defendant have not any
independent right there in to continue to stay. Hence the
condition of 2nd defendant alarming and damage to building
are very severe. Hence, it need to evict the defendants from
suit schedule property to save the life of 2nd defendant and
the schedule property. Accordingly, the cause of action to
suit arose.
15. In its contrary the defendants have contended,
the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eyes
of law, it is filed with the malafide intention and with
ulterior motive to knock of the suit schedule property from
the defendant in which defendant has invested her earnings
from the rubber plantation in her native. The above suit is
false, frivolous, vexatious, scandalous, made with a view to
46 OS No. 26483/2018
harass the defendant and hold her for a ransom. The
plaintiff who is the husband of the defendant is very
avaricious, unjust, inhuman who wants to make unjust
enrichment at the cost of defendant, The above suit lacks in
material particulars and the same is vague and bald. The
plaintiff and the defendant had been living along with their
children at No.136/15,, New No.14, 2nd Cross, Grape
Garden, Ejipura, Bangalore 560 047. The defendant that in
the year 2006 the behavior and the attitude of the plaintiff
towards the defendant had started changing from bad to
worse. The plaintiff had started abusing the defendant and
harassing her verbally and physically for the reasons best
known to him. In the month of august 2006 the plaintiff
had left the house and started living separately on his own
inspite of the children pleading with him to come and live
with them. The plaintiff did not oblige to the pleadings of
the defendant and chose to live on his own separately. The
plaintiff had visited his native Kanyakumari District at Tamil
Nadu in the month of October and came back to Bangalore.
One week after the plaintiff returning to Bangalore the
defendant had come to know that the plaintiff had got
47 OS No. 26483/2018
married to a lady by name Ms. Binu on 18th of October
2006 at Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu and started living with
her as husband and wife at the above mentioned address. In
the month of February 2007 an insurance policy card was
sent to the defendants address which was received by the
defendant. When the defendant had looked in to the cover
she was shocked to know that in the insurance policy the
plaintiff had declared himself as the husband of the said
lady Ms. Binu with whom he got married. After going
through the insurance policy it was confirmed that the
plaintiff had got married to the lady by name Binu and was
living with her as husband and wife. When the defendant
had questioned the plaintiff with regard to the said
marriage with the lady the plaintiff’s answer was not
convincing. The defendant had filed a petition before the
family court for restitution of conjugal rights and the same
came to be disposed before the Hon’ble second additional
family court under M.C.No.1546/2007, in the said case in
spite of pleading that a case is pending at Madurai bench of
Madras High court under CMSA (MD) 45/2010 against the
lower court judgment, the family court at Bangalore had
48 OS No. 26483/2018
granted divorce of the marriage between the plaintiff and
the defendant. The appeal case filed at Madurai bench of
Madras High court under CMSA (MD) 45/2010 was heard on
19-03-2019 and the stay has been extended for further
period of three months hence it is evident that the order
passed by the lower court in Tamil Nadu. The plaintiff is
trying to alienate or dispose of the schedule mentioned
property in a hasty manner in favour of some other third
party. Even though the sale deed pertaining to the schedule
mentioned property stands in the name of the plaintiff
considerable portion of the sale proceeds was paid by the
defendant which she received from the earning of the
rubber plantation at her native. The defendant that plaintiff
is planning to sell the schedule mentioned property and go
way to Tamil Nadu and settle there along with the lady to
whom he got married illegally. If the plaintiff alienates or
encumbers the schedule mentioned property to some other
party the defendant shall be deprived of her legitimate right
on the suit schedule mentioned property.
49 OS No. 26483/2018
16. If it summarized the facts arise to the
controversy, no dispute with respect to the relationship in
between the plaintiff and the defendants. No dispute with
respect to availability of ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule property and
no dispute with respect to set aside the judgment and
decree of divorce in between the plaintiff and 1 st defendant
as per Ex.D3, order copy of Hon’ble High Court of Madras
sitting at Madhurai. As per Ex.D3, the order and decree
passed in HMCP 48/07 dated17.02.2010 confirmed in Ex.P13
decree in CMA 16/2010 dated 31.08.2010 set aside by the
Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench with E.xD3
document judgment and decree, the same such of the
judgment and decree in Ex.D3 passed by Hon’ble High
court of Madras, Madurai Bench, it negate the case of the
plaintiff and relationship of the plaintiff and defendant No.1
is still existed as husband and wife. Once the relationship in
between the plaintiff and the defendant existed as husband
and wife as per Ex.D3 judgment and decree by set aside the
judgment and decree of divorce, owning of the possession
of ‘B’ schedule property by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 not
to be called as illegal possession. Without of proving the
50 OS No. 26483/2018
factum with respect to illegal possession in the suit schedule
property by the defendants, the case of the plaintiff for
eviction and recovery of possession of the defendants with
respect to ‘B’ schedule property not to holds any of the
water.
17. Further, from Ex.D2 judgment in OS No.170/2018
of Hon’ble 1st Addl Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru it
evidence with respect to the suit schedule property it
granted the decree in against the Plaintiff of this suit and
wherein the same judgment and decree it restrained the
plaintiff of this suit, from not alienated suit schedule
property to any third parties. Important to note the
judgment and decree in Ex.D3 and Ex.D2 passed by
Honorable High Court, Madhurai and 1st Addl. Prl. Judge,
Family court, rest in the record as unchallenged and no
order in against to both the judgment and decree as of
today. In against to that judgment and decree the Plaintiff
have not placed any of the evidence at in the case record.
Further, with respect to existence of same Ex.D2 and Ex.D3
judgment and decree, the Plaintiff fail to elicited any of
51 OS No. 26483/2018
the evidence at through the mouth of DW1 in despite of
lengthy cross examination on DW1 and DW2. Further, into
that Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 judgment and decree no single
suggestion it suggested by the Plaintiff to the DW1. If it
Ex.D3 and Ex.D2 judgment and decree once it to be run in
against the case of the plaintiff and the plaintiff claim, the
same document made him into dis entitled the relief of any
kind as prayed in the suit. As such though the plaintiff
have the evidence of PW2 and PW3 along with his
deposition and Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 document, the same such of
the material placed by the plaintiff fail to overcome the
case of the defendants and Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 documents.
Further, since the Plaintiff fail to proving either the
relationship of tenant and land lord with the Defendants or
alleged ill legal possession of the Defendant in the B
schedule property, the same such of stands of the plaintiff
made him into disentitle the any kind of relief as prayed
in the suit.
52 OS No. 26483/2018
18. Further, it also important to looked into the law
in that aspect enumerated under section 7 of the Family
Court Act, the same is herein;
Section 7 – Jurisdiction
Subject to the other provisions
of this act, a Family Court
shall (a)have and exercise all
the jurisdiction exercisable by
any district court or any
subordinate civil court under
any law for the time being in
force in respect of suits and
proceedings of the nature
referred to in the Explanation;
and
(b)be deemed, for the
purposes of exercising such
jurisdiction under such law,
to be a district court or, as
the case may be, such
subordinate civil court for the
area to which the jurisdiction
of the Family Court extends.
Explanation.-The suits and
proceedings referred to in this
sub-section are suits and
proceedings of the following
nature, namely:-
(a)—————–
53 OS No. 26483/2018
(b)—————————
(c)a suit or proceeding
between the parties to a
marriage with respect to the
property of the parties or of
either of them;
(d)a suit or proceeding for an
order or injunction in
circumstances arising out of a
marital relationship;
(e)——————-
(f)———————
(g)——————-
19. Further, into this connection it had an occasion
to the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka to rendered an
judgment reported in; 1) 1990(1) KARLJ225 – Venkatappa
and another Vs The Chairman, Family Courts and others –
the relevant para No.4 of the judgment extracted in the
below for my convenient;
4. The family court has
exclusive jurisdiction in trying
disputes between the husband
and wife, as provided under
Section 7 of the Family
Court’s Act, (see explanation
7 of Section 7), the property
dispute between the husband
54 OS No. 26483/2018
and wife shall be the subject
matter of jurisdiction of the
family court as if a separate
suit is not necessary.
20. After consolidate the controversy in between the
parties no dispute with respect to relationship in between
the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant and also their marriage status
as averred in the plaint. According to the Plaintiff, 1 st
Defendant is the wife and the Plaintiff is her husband, their
marriage has taken place & they gave birth to two children
including 2nd Defendant. Since no relationship of husband
and wife in between the Plaintiff and 1 st Defendant and
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have been in the illegal possession of
‘B’ schedule property, the cause of action to the present suit
arose to the Plaintiff. On the other hand if it go through the
Ex.D2 and Ex.P11 judgment passed in OS No.170/2008,
wherein the judgment and decree it appears 1 st Defendant
obtained a decree in against the Plaintiff of this suit with
respect to the suit schedule property. As per Ex.D2 & Ex.P11
judgment and decree the Plaintiff of this suit, it restrained
him from alienating the suit schedule property to third
55 OS No. 26483/2018
parties without consent of 1st Defendant. Not in dispute
Ex.D2 judgment and decree passed by Hon’ble I Addl. Prl.
Judge Family Court, Bengaluru in OS No.170/2008. Further,
in against Ex.D2 judgment and decree the Plaintiff have no
such of the probable evidence that he placed at in the case
record. The dispute in between the plaintiff and the
defendants in related to property is kind of a family dispute
and since there is a special jurisdiction with respect to
family dispute and property of the family as jurisdiction by
subject matter, the present suit at before this court is not
survive. Further, since Plaintiff of this suit have already the
knowledge of Ex.D2 judgment and decree and same such of
the judgment and decree passed by Honorable I Addl. Prl.
Judge Family Court, Bengaluru, the present suit at before
this court is surprise to the law of Family Court Act. Since
one round dispute with respect to the suit schedule property
have already adjudicated at before the Honorable I Addl.
Prl. Judge Family Court, Bengaluru in Ex.D2 judgment, the
Civil Court have no jurisdiction to entertain the present kind
of suit as per section 7 and 8 of Family Court Act, 1984.
Hence, the question of jurisdiction of subject matter come
56 OS No. 26483/2018
into the way for discussion to the present controversy in the
present suit.
21. With the background of above all observation one
prudent man can say, the plaintiff though he has maintained
the present suit by an astute drafting the plaintiff has not
made an attempt to bring the present suit as the special
jurisdiction constituted to the matrimonial dispute, but the
attempt of the plaintiff under this suit not beard. The
Court has to be vigilant against any camouflage or
suppression and is under an obligation to ascertain whether
a litigation is utterly vexatious or is an abuse of process of
the Court. In the instant case, the plaintiff have not disputed
the factum of earlier one round of litigation in OS No.
170/2008 by 1st defendant at family court. In despite, the
suit has been filed deliberately invoking the civil court
jurisdiction in disputed in constituted the jurisdiction of
special jurisdiction namely jurisdiction of subject matter. The
same such deliberative approach of the plaintiff at before
this court it get shut down the jurisdiction of this court even
he has the cause of action in against the defendant and the
57 OS No. 26483/2018
same is wholly misconceived. For the above all discussion
that I am of the view the plaintiff fail to prove his case.
Hence I answer the issue Nos.1 to 4 in the Negative.
22. Issue No.5: In view of my findings on issue 1 to
5, I proceed to pass the following:
: O R D E R :
The suit of the plaintiff, is
dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
In view of disposal of the suit,
pending interlocutory applications if any
do not survive for consideration and they
stands disposed off.
No order as to cost.
(Dictated directly to the Stenographer on computer typed by her, corrected and then signed by me and
pronounced in the open Court on this the 20 th day of July, 2026)sd/-
[ ONKARAPPA.R]
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
58 OS No. 26483/2018:ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 : G.Sreekumaran
PW.2 : C.Immauvel
PW.3 : AK.Annadurai
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : V.VkumariShylaja
DW.2 : Mr. S.Kannan
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Letter
Ex.P2 Water Bill
Ex.P3 Receipt
Ex.P4 Certified copy of counter statement MOP
No.48/07
Ex.P5 Certified copy of counter statement MOP
No.48/07
Ex.P6 Certified copy of compromise petition in OS
No.362/91
Ex.P7 Notice
Ex.P8 Two postal receipts
and P9
Ex.P10 Copy of legal notice
Ex.P11 Certified copy of order sheet in OS No.170/2008
59 OS No. 26483/2018Ex.P12 Certified copy of plaint in OS No.170/2008
Ex.P13 Certified copy of decree in CMA 16/10
Ex.P14 Certified copy of decree in MC No.1546/2007
Ex.P15 Original sale deed dated 27.09.1994
Ex.P16 Katha certificate
Ex.P17 Katha extract
Ex.P18 Tax paid receipt
Ex.P19 CD
Ex.P20 Certified coy of phone bill
Ex.P21 Notice confrontation marking to DW1.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of Assets and liabilities – confronted to
PW1
Ex.D2 Certified copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.
170/2008
Ex.D3 Certified copy of Judgment of Hon’ble Madras High
Court in CMSA [ MD ] 45/2010
Ex.D4 Police complaint dated : 29.05.2016 with original seal
for having received the same
Ex.D5 Police complaint dated : 05.07.2017 with original seal
for having received the same
Ex.D6 Original cash bill [ 2 Nos. ]
Ex.D7 Original note book containing accounts regarding
construction.
60 OS No. 26483/2018
Ex.D8 Office copy of police complaint
Ex.D9 5 self account chits
to
Ex.D13sd/-
[ ONKARAPPA.R ]
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
