Bangalore District Court
Dharani Bai C vs Yasmin Ali on 30 June, 2026
KABC010161542011
Govt. of Karnataka
Form No. 9
(Civil) Title Sheet
for Judgment in TITLE SHEETS FOR THE JUDGEMENT
Suits (R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU [CCH-10]
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2026
:: PRESENT ::
Sri. Vijaya Devaraja Urs, B.Com., LL.B.,
XVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
: : O.S. No. 4286/2011 : :
PLAINTIFFS:
1. SMT. C. DHARANI BAI,
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs.
2. DR. GANESH VIJAY KUMAR
S/O. LATE P. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT. BLK 210, # 02-391,
JURANG EAST ST.21,
SINGAPORE-600 210.
REP. BY HIS SPA HOLDER
WG. CDR G. RAVIKUMAR,
S/O. LATE. P. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
JUDGMENT 2 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
3. WG. CDR G. RAVIKUMAR,
S/O. LATE. P. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT ROOM NO.253,
AIR HEADQUARTERS, (VAYU BHAVAN),
RAFI MARG, NEW DELHI-110 106.
CAMP AT: 19, 5TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS,
KRISHNAPPA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032.
(BY PLEADER SRI. N. K. K)
- V/s -
DEFENDANTS:
1. MRS. YASMIN ALI,
W/O. SYED HAFEEZ ALI,
D/O. SADATHULLA MEKHRI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
2. MR. GANESH SHIVAKUMAR,
S/O. LATE. P. CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT APARTMENT NO.13, 3RD FLOOR,
HERITAGE RESIDENCY, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
AMBEDKAR COLONY, KAVAL BYRASANDRA,
KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK.
3. MR. KABEER ALI,
S/O. YASMIN ALI,
MAJOR.
THE DEFENDANT NOS. 1 & 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO. 11, 'RAHAMAN MANSION',
1ST CROSS, M. M. LAYOUT, R. T. NAGAR POST,
KAVALBYRASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 032.
JUDGMENT 3 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
4. MR. NARAYAN. B,
S/O. S. BHADRAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.115/202, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
5TH CROSS, NGEF LAYOUT,
SANJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE-560 094.
[BY PLEADERS SRI. S.K.S FOR D-1,
SRI. M.S., FOR D-2, & SRI. N.K., FOR D-3;
D-4 PLACED EXPARTE]
DATE OF
INSTITUTION OF : 17-06-2011
SUIT
DECLARATION &
NATURE OF THE
: PERMANENT
SUIT
INJUNCTION
DATE OF
RECORDING OF : 21-01-2012
EVIDENCE
DATE OF
PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-06-2026
OF JUDGMENT
YEAR/S MONTH/S DAY/S
TOTAL :
DURATION 15 00 13
(Vijaya Devaraja Urs)
XVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT 4 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
: JUDGEMENT :
:
This suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for the relief
of declaration that, they are the absolute owners and in
possession of the plaint schedule property, seeking a decree
of declaration that the purported Sale Deed dated 28-10-
2010 alleged to have been executed by one Sri. P.
Chandrashekar in favour of the defendant No.1, is forged,
fabricated, non-est and illegal; and further that the
Registered Agreement of Sale in favour of the defendant
No. 4 dated 21-02-2015 by the defendant No.1 is also
therefore illegal and non-est, and not binding upon the
plaintiffs. They further sought to demolish the illegal
temporary construction put up over the plaint schedule
property and hand over the vacant possession of the plaint
schedule property and costs of the suit.
2. The plaint schedule property consists of a vacant site
bearing No. 32, measuring East to West -12.20 meters/40
feet, and North to South-18.29 meters/60 feet, situated at
2nd Stage, The NTI Employees Housing Co-operative Society
JUDGMENT 5 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
Ltd., Nagashettihalli, now comes within the jurisdiction of
the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Ward No.
W(100)19-13-32 having its PID No.100-13-32, which is
morefully described as ‘plaint schedule property’ at the foot
of the plaint and hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’
for short, & bounded by:
East by : Site No. 31,
West by : Site No. 33,
North by : Site No. 25,
South by : Road.
3. The facts in brief of the plaintiffs’ case are as under :-
3(a). The plaintiff No.1(Smt. Dharani Bai) is the
widow of one Sri. P. Chandrashekar. The plaintiff Nos. 2, 3,
and the defendant No.2 (Dr. Ganesh Vijay Kumar, Wing
Commander G. Ravikumar, and, Sri. Ganesh Shivakumar)
respectively are the sons of the plaintiff No.1 and
Sri. P. Chandrashekar.
JUDGMENT 6 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
3(b). The plaintiffs, the defendant No. 2 and
Sri. P. Chandrashekar had been residing at No. 48, upstairs,
Venkataraya Layout, Palace Guttahalli, Bengaluru-560 003
till they shifted to door No. 19, 9th Cross, 5th Main,
Krishnappa Block, Bengaluru-560 032 in the year 1979. The
aforesaid Sri. P. Chandrashekar resided with the plaintiffs
and the defendant No.2 at the aforesaid address i.e., door
No. 19, 9th Cross, 5th Main, Krishnappa Block, Bengaluru-
560 032 from 1979 till 20th February, 1999.
3(c). The NTI Housing Co-Operative Society
Ltd., allotted the suit property in favour of the aforesaid Sri.
P. Chandrashekar and executed a registered Sale Deed in
his favour on 31st January 1977. The said Sri. P.
Chandrashekar was the absolute owner and in possession of
the suit property till his death i.e., on 20th February,
1999. The plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2 succeeded to
the suit property after the death of Sri. P. Chandrashekar.
The suit property came within the jurisdiction of BBMP in the
year 2007. The plaintiff No. 1 had filed application before
JUDGMENT 7 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
the authority concerned to mutate her name in the revenue
records and the authority concerned issued Khata Certificate
and Khata Extract on 24-01-2011 and 27-01-2011
respectively. The Khata has been stand in the name of the
plaintiff No. 1.
3(d). It is averred in the plaint that, the
plaintiffs learnt about the Khata Certificate and Khata
Extract purportedly obtained by the unknown person
impersonating himself to be Sri. P. Chandrashekar from B B
M P on 25-10-2010. They have also learnt about the
existence of Sale Deed dated 28-10-2010 purportedly
executed by the unknown person impersonating himself to
be Sri. P. Chandrashekar in favour of the defendant No. 1,
Smt. Yasmin Ali.
3(e). The plaintiffs came to know about the
illegal and fraud committed by the defendant No. 1 when
the relatives of the defendant No. 1 asserted title over the
suit property on the strength of the Sale Deed dated 28-10-
2010 and threatened the plaintiff No. 1 that the original Sale
JUDGMENT 8 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
Deed in her possession has become useless and can be
destroyed. Immediately, the plaintiffs approached the
jurisdictional police and lodged First Information
complaining the commission of offence punishable under
Sections 468, 471, 419 and 420 of IPC on 13-0-2011. The
jurisdictional police registered the said crime in Crime No.
85/2011 and submitted a charge sheet before the Hon’ble
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The said Criminal
case is pending for consideration.
3(f). It is further averred that, the second
defendant had approached The NTI Housing Co-operative
Society Ltd., for issuance of Possession Certificate and the
said Society issued duplicate Possession Certificate on
28th February, 2011. It appears that, the defendant No. 2
has been colluding with defendant No. 1 created fraudulent
and concocted Sale Deed. The plaintiffs issued notice to the
defendant No. 1 on 09-05-2011, but the said notice
returned with Postal Shara ‘Unclaimed returned to sender’.
JUDGMENT 9 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
The defendant No.1 has knowledge about pending of the
criminal case and as such, refused to receive the notice.
3(g). It is further averred that, on a routine visit to
the suit property on 18-02-2018, the defendant No. 1 has
trespassed into the suit property and constructed
unauthorized and illegal shelter in the suit property. They
learnt that, the defendant No. 1 executed a registered
Agreement of Sale in respect of the suit property in favour
of the defendant No. 4 on 21-02-2015. Immediately, the
plaintiffs approached the jurisdictional police and tried to
lodge First Statement (complaint in common parlance) but
the jurisdictional police refused to register the criminal case
against the defendants. The plaintiffs have filed a complaint
before the Hon’ble VIII ACMM, Bengaluru on 22-09-2018 for
the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420 and 441 of
IPC. The said complaint has been registered as PCR No.
1056/2018 and the same is pending for consideration.
JUDGMENT 10 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
3(h). According to the plaintiffs, Sri. P.
Chandrashekar died on 20th February 1999 and as such,
he could not have executed the alleged Sale Deed dated
28th October, 2010 in favour of the defendant No. 1 and
when the plaintiffs came to know about the illegal and fraud
committed by the defendants and when the defendant No. 1
asserted title over the suit property on the strength of the
above alleged Sale Deed, the plaintiffs have constrained to
file the present suit. These are all facts said to be the cause
of action for the suit and the same arose on 28-10-2010,
12-04-2011, and on subsequent dates, within the
jurisdiction of this court and accordingly, the plaintiffs have
prayed for judgment and decree.
4. Though, the suit summons was served on the
defendant No .4, he remained absent before the Court and
as such, he was placed ex-parte by this Court on 10th
February 2022.
JUDGMENT 11 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
5. On service of summons from this court, the defendant
Nos. 1 to 3 appeared through their respective Counsel and
filed separate written statements.
6. The defendant No.2 has filed the written statement
contending that the present suit is not maintainable either in
law or on facts and liable to be dismissed with costs.
6(a). He has admitted in his written statement
about the relationship averred in the plaint and also the
acquisition of suit property by Sri. P. Chandrashekar.
He has also admitted that, Sri. P. Chandrashekar (his
father) died on 20th February 1999. He has also
admitted that the defendant No. 1 with an oblique motive to
knock off the suit property has fabricated the Sale Deed
dated 28th October, 2010 by way of impersonation
showing somebody as Sri. P. Chandrashekar before the Sub-
Registrar and the Sale Deed has been obtained illegally. He
further contends that, he being one of the legal heirs of
aforesaid P. Chandrashekar has got equal share in the suit
JUDGMENT 12 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
property. He has prayed to partition the suit property and
allot his share in the interest of justice and equity.
7. The defendant No.1 has filed detailed written
statement denying the entire averments found in the plaint
and called upon the plaintiffs to prove the same strictly.
7(a). The defendant No.1 has contended in the
written statement that Sri. P. Chandrashekar is still alive.
The said P. Chandrashekar used to visit the defendant No.
1’s house and had offered to sell the suit property and on
due negotiation, said P. Chandrashekar and the defendant
No. 2 agreed to sell the suit property for a total
consideration of Rs. 48,00,000/- and in this regard an
Agreement of Sale dated 30th September 2009 came into
existence. At the time of said Agreement, an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- paid as advance. The plaintiff No. 1 is one of
the attesting witnesses to the said Agreement.
JUDGMENT 13 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
7(b). It is further averred that, an Additional
Agreement of Sale dated 27th October 2010 came into
existence and at that time, the defendant No. 1 paid
Rs.27,00,000/- to the plaintiff No. 1 and to the said
Chandrashekar as further earnest money. The plaintiff No. 1
has subscribed her signature in the witness column to the
Additional Agreement of Sale.
7(c). It is further contended in the written
statement that in all the documents, the name of the first
plaintiff’s husband name shown as ‘P. Chandrashekaran S/o.
Periasamy Mudaliar’ and whereas in the alleged Death
Certificate it was shown as ‘Chandra Shekar P S/o. Peria
Swamy’. The plaintiffs concocted the said Death Certificate
trying to grab illegally the suit property. It is further averred
that, the defendant No. 2 handed over to her a notarized
written declaration that his father i.e., P. Chandrashekara
himself had sold the suit property in her favour.
JUDGMENT 14 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
7(d). It is further contended in the written
statement that, the defendant No. 1 is a bonafide purchaser
for value and the suit is not maintainable either in law or on
facts and there is no cause of action for the suit and sought
to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
8. The defendant No. 3 has filed the written statement
and the same is in the line of the written statement filed by
the defendant No. 1 and he has also sought to dismiss the
suit with exemplary costs.
9. During the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff No. 1
died and her legal heirs are already on record as the Plaintiff
Nos. 2 & 3, and the defendant No. 2.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court’s
predecessor in office has re-casted the Eleven issues (11)
on 13th November 2024, and they are as under:
JUDGMENT 15 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
::ISSUES::
Issue No. 1 : Whether plaintiffs proves
that suit property was
purchased by deceased P.
Chandra Shekhar under sale
deed dt. 31.01.1977 and
hence plaintiffs have
become absolute owners
and possesses of the suit
property ?
Issue No. 2 : Whether plaintiffs proves
that the sale deed dt.
28.10.2010 was not
executed by deceased
P.Chandra Shekhar (who
died on 20.02.1999) in
favour of defendant no.1
and hence this sale deed is
null and void and not
binding upon the plaintiffs ?
Issue No. 3 : Whether plaintiffs proves
that the agreement of sale
dt. 21.02.2015 executed by
defendant no.1 and 3 in
favour of defendant no.4 is
JUDGMENT 16 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
null and void and not
binding upon the plaintiffs ?
Issue No. 4 : Whether plaintiffs proves
that they are entitle for
vacant possession of the suit
schedule property from
defendant no.1, 3 and 4 ?
Issue No. 5 : Whether plaintiff proves that
defendant no.4 has put up
illegal construction over the
suit schedule property and
hence it has to be
demolished by way of
mandatory injunction ?
Issue No. 6 : Whether plaintiffs proves
that defendant no.1, 3 and 4
are liable to pay damages of
Rs. 20,000/- per month to
them from the date of
agreement of sale dt.
21.02.2015 till delivery of
vacant possession of suit
schedule property ?
Issue No. 7 : Whether defendant no.2
proves that he is entitle for
1/3rd share in the suit
JUDGMENT 17 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
schedule property and the
suit sale deed dt.
28.10.2010 is not binding
upon him ?
Issue No. 8 : Whether defendant no.1
proves that she is bonafide
purchaser of the suit
schedule property for
valuable consideration and
sale deed executed in her
favour dt. 28.10.2010 is
valid and genuine
document ?
Issue No. 9 : Whether defendant no.1
proves that valuation of the
suit property and court fee
paid by the plaintiffs is not
proper and correct ?
Issue No. 10 : Whether the plaintiffs are
entitled for the relief of
perpetual injunction as
prayed for ?
Issue No. 11 : What order or decree?
JUDGMENT 18 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
11. In order to prove the above issues, the third plaintiff
has been examined as P w. 1 and in all got marked thirty-
three documents from Ex. P-1 to P-33. One Sri. B. Shankar
S/o. Late P. Baboo, Sri. V. Ravi Mohitay S/o. Late.
Venkobarao Mohitay, and Sri. Vinayak D Kamath S/o. M.
D. Kamath have been examined as P w.-2 to 4. The first
defendant, has been examined as D w.-1 and in all got
marked twelve documents from Ex. D-1 to D-12.
12. Heard the Learned Counsel for the respective parties.
This Court has perused the materials available on record.
13. Having heard the arguments, perused the materials on record,
the findings by this Court on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No. 1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No. 2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No. 3 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No. 4 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No. 5 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No. 6 : In the Negative,
JUDGMENT 19 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
Does not survive for
Issue No.7 : consideration,
Issue No. 8 : In the Negative,
Issue No. 9 : In the Negative,
Issue No. 10 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No. 11 : As per final order below for
the following...
::REASONS::
14. I S S U E Nos. 1, 2, & 8 : It is the specific case of
the plaintiffs that, the plaintiff No. 1 is the widow of one
Sri. P. Chandra Shekar and the plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, and the
defendant No. 2 are their children. The said Sri. P Chandra
Shekar purchased the suit property under a registered sale
deed dated 31-01-1977 and he became the absolute owner
of the suit property. He died intestate on 20-02-1999 and
the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2 succeeded to the suit
property by way of inheritance. It is their specific case that
an unknow person impersonating himself to be Sri. P
Chandra Shekar executed a registered sale deed in favour of
the defendant No. 1, Smt. Yasmin Ali on 28-10-2010 and
JUDGMENT 20 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
the same is a fraudulent, created, concocted, illegal
document and the same is non-est in the eye of law.
Per contra, it is the specific contention of the
defendant No. 1 that, Sri. P Chandrashekarn was alive as on
28-10-2010 and he himself sold the suit property under a
registered sale deed in her favour for a Valuable
consideration and as such, the sale deed dated 28-10-2010
is a valid, genuine instrument/document and she is a
bonafide purchaser of the suit property for value.
All these issues are inter-related and the facts are
necessary for common discussion. A finding on one issue
will have great bearing on other issues. Hence, all these
issues are taken up together to avoid repetition of facts and
for common discussion.
14(a). In order to prove the plaintiffs’ case, the plaintiff
No. 3 has been examined as P.w.-1 who has filed affidavit in
lieu of examination-in-chief reiterating the averments found
in the plaint.
JUDGMENT 21 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
14(b). The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argues
that, Sri. P Chandrashekarn was an employee of the
National Tuberculosis Institute, Bangalore and the
employees of the said Institution have a society by name
” NTI Employees’ Housing Co-operative Society Ltd.,” at
Bangalore. Sri. P Chandrashekarn was also one of the
members of that society. The said society purchased the
lands in Sy. Nos. 61/1 and 60/4 of Nagasettihally and
formed a residential layout. The said institution allotted
sites to its members, executed the sale deeds in favour of
its members, & later got released the sites from the
Bangalore Development Authority. The society also issued
possession certificates to its members by handing of the
possession of the sites.
14(c). The learned counsel for the plaintiffs placed
reliance on Ex. P-2 to 6 and contends the N T I Society
allotted the suit property in favour of Sri. P.
Chandrashekaran on 16-09-1976 vide Ex. P-2, executed a
registered sale deed on 31-01-1977 vide Ex. P-4,
JUDGMENT 22 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
intimated him for having got released the suit property from
B D A on 15-09-1977 vide Ex. P-3, issued possession
certificate on 15-10-1978 vide Ex. P-6 and handed over
the physical possession of the suit property. He has also
placed reliance on Ex. P-5 to contend that Bangalore
Development Authority issued a certificate dated
27-06-1978 certifying that suit property stands in the
name of Sri. P. Chandrasekharan.
14(d). Though, the P. w.- 1 was cross examined thrice
and at length, there is no focus on these documents. These
documents i.e., Ex. P-2 to 6 are not controverted during the
course of cross examination of the P. w.-1. It is not the
case of the contesting defendants that these documents are
concocted, created, or fabricated. In fact, contents of all
these documents are recited in Ex. D-1, certified copy of the
registered sale deed dated 28-10-2010 produced by the
defendant No. 1 that too when she is claiming her title
basing on this document. As such, the contesting
defendants cannot dispute these documents. Without
JUDGMENT 23 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
further discussion, this Court on the basis of the
documentary evidence holds that, Sri. P. Chandrashekar
was the absolute owner and in possession of the suit
property.
14(e). It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, Sri. P.
Chandrashekar died on 20-02-1999. They placed reliance on
Ex. P-7. The Ex. P-7 is a death certificate issued by the
BBMP, Bangalore. Name of the dead person is shown as
“Chandra Shekar. P ” at Sl. No. 1; father’s name of the
deceased shown as ” Periya Swamy ” at Sl. No. 2; the date
of death is shown as ” 20/02/1999 ” at Sl. No. 4; the date of
registration is shown as ” 26/02/1999 ” at Sl. No. 5; the
place of death is shown as ” Bangalore Baptist Hospital ” at
Sl. No. 7 and the permanent address of the deceased shown
as ” 19, 5th Main, 9th Cross, Krishnappa Block, Ganganagar,
Bangalore-32 ” at Sl. No. 8.
14(f). As per this document/Ex. P-7 a person by name
” Chandra Shekar. P S/o. Peiya Swamy ” died on 20-02-
1999 at Baptist Hospital, Bangalore and the said death was
JUDGMENT 24 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
intimated to the authority concerned within 6 days from the
date of death i.e., on 26-02-1999.
14(g). Whenever death of a person takes place in the
Hospital, the respected Doctor gives a Medical Certificate
of Cause of Death (MCCD) and an intimation letter.
The hospital sends this intimation directly to the local civic
body. It appears that the Civic Body i.e., the BBMP on
receipt of the intimation letter from the Baptist Hospital
recorded the death of ” Chandra Shekar P ” as per Ex. P-7.
14(h). Death certificate is a public document. It is
admissible in court as reliable proof of the fact and date of
death under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, provided
it is issued by an authorized statutory authority. It is
relevant to refer Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act
which reads as under :
“35. Relevancy of entry in public [record or an
electronic record] made in performance of duty. –
An entry in any public or other official book,
register or [record or an electronic record] stating
JUDGMENT 25 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by a
public servant in the discharge of his official duty,
or by any other person in performance of a duty
specially enjoined by the law of the country in
which such book, register or [record or an
electronic record] is kept, is itself a relevant fact.”
It is its statutory obligation to register the births and deaths
of the persons on receipt of the information and issue
certificate when the same is asked for by any persons.
Admittedly, the Ex. P-7 has been issued by the competent
Authority i.e., Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.
14(i). The P w.-1 denies the suggestion that during the
lifetime of his father, there was no cordial relationship
between the defendant No. 2 and his father. This suggestion
cut root the case of the defendant No. 1 that, Sri. P Chandra
Shekar is still alive. He admits the suggestion that his
father’s name was shown as ” Chandra Shekar P ” in
Ex. P-7. This suggestion can be had at the page No. 9 of
P.w.-1’s deposition. This suggestion cut root the case of the
defendant No. 1 that, the death certificate produced at
JUDGMENT 26 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
Ex. P-7 is not of Sri. P Chandra Shekar and he was not died
on 26-02-1999.
14(j). The plaintiffs have examined one Sri. B. Sankar
resident of Chennai as P.w.-2 to contend that, Sri. P.
Chandrashekar died at Baptist Hospital, Hebbal on
20th February 1999. He was examined on 27-09-2016.
His affidavit in lieu of examination of chief discloses that,
the plaintiff No. 1(widow of Sri. P Chandrashekar) is his
maternal aunt and his uncle i.e., maternal aunt’s husband
died at Baptist Hospital, Hebbal on 20-02-1999. He was
subjected to cross examination. During the cross
examination, he deposes that, the plaintiff No. 3 is his
cousin. He denies the suggestion that his uncle is still alive.
He further deposes that, his uncle died due to diabetic
complications. Though, he was cross examined, even
remotely, no suggestion was put to him that
Sri. P Chandrashekar was not suffering from illness and he
died at Baptist Hospital, Hebbal. His evidence to the
effect that Sri. P Chandrashekar died at Baptiest Hospital
JUDGMENT 27 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
corroborates the documentary evidence at Ex. P-7, death
certificate.
14(k). The plaintiffs have examined one Sri. V Ravi
Mohitay aged about 52 years resident of No. 18, 2nd cross,
Muneshwara Temple Road, Nagashetti halli, Bangalore.
He was examined on 25-10-2016 as P w.-3. His affidavit
in lieu of examination of chief discloses that, Sri. P
Chandrashekar and his family members used to reside at
No. 19, 5th Main, 9th cross, Krishnappa Block, Ganganagar,
Bangalore-32 and he was his neighbour for 20 years. He
also stated that P. Chandrashekar died on 20-02-1999 and
he attended the cremation ceremony. He was subjected to
cross examination. He affirms during the course of cross
examination that P Chandrashekar died on 20-02-1999 and
his last rites took place at Harishchandra Ghat. Though, this
witness was cross-examined, even remotely, no suggestion
was put to him that P Chandrashekar did not die on 20-02-
1999. He has produced his Aadhar Card during the course of
cross examination and the same has been marked as Ex. P-
JUDGMENT 28 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
22. The address mentioned in this document corresponds to
the address mentioned in the examination-in-chief affidavit.
An inference that can be drawn is that he is the neighbour
of the plaintiffs’ family.
14(l). The plaintiffs have examined one Sri. Vinayak D
Kamath aged about 50 years. He was examined on 25-10-
2016 as P w.-4. His affidavit in lieu of examination of chief
discloses that, he is close friend and was a classmate of the
plaintiff No. 3. He used to visit the plaintiff No.3’s house.
Sri. P Chandrashekar was working at NTI as X-Ray Engineer
and died on 20-02-199. His evidence further discloses that
the plaintiff No. 3’s father was admitted to Baptist Hospital
and died there on 20th February 1999 and attended the
cremation ceremony. He denies the suggestion that Sri. P
Chandrashekar is still alive.
14(m). Though, the P. w.- 2 to 4 were cross examined,
the defendant No. 1 did not establish any circumstances to
indicate that the P. w.-2 to 4 are interested witnesses or
planted witnesses or that there was any animosity between
JUDGMENT 29 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
the defendant No. 1 and these three witnesses. Therefore,
their evidence cannot be discarded.
14(n). It is an admitted fact that Sri. P
Chandrashekaran was an employee of National Tuberculosis
Institute, Bangalore. It is a central government research
center. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that,
” The Central Pension Accounting Office Government of Inia,
New Delhi ” used to pay pension to Sri. P Chandrashekaran
after his retirement and placed reliance on Ex. P-29.
14(o). The Ex. P-29 is an authorisation letter issued to
the Manager, SBI, Bangalore to pay pension to Sri. P.
Chandrasekaran whose PPO No. is 215459200468. It is
dated 25-11-1992. The full form of PPO in the context of
pensions is Pension Payment Order. It is a unique 12-digit
reference number assigned by retirement authorities to
every pensioner.
14(p). The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits
that, ” The Central Pension Accounting Office Government of
JUDGMENT 30 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
Inia, New Delhi ” used to pay Family pension to the plaintiff
No. 1, Smt. C Dharani Bai after the death of her husband
and placed reliance on Ex. P-30.
14(q). A family pension is a fixed monthly support
payment given by the government to dependent family
members when an employee or retiree passes away. The
Ex. P-30 is an authorisation letter issued to the Manager,
SBI, Bangalore to pay Family Pension to Smt C. Dharani
Bai whose PPO No. is 215459200468. It is dated 22-11-
2013. The revised family pension as per 6th Central Pay
Commission from 1-6-2006 has been given by this letter.
An inference that can be drawn is that the 1st plaintiff had
been drawing family pension and her family pension got
revised as per 6th Pay Commission from 2006 onwards.
14(r). The plaintiffs have produced Savings Bank
Account pass book of the 1st Plaintiff, Smt. Dharanibai C at
Ex. P-31. As per this document, the 1st plaintiff drawing
family pension and the there is an entry to the effect dated
29-11-2005. There is no dispute with regard to these
JUDGMENT 31 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
three documents(Ex. P-29 to 31) during the course of cross
examination of the P. w.-1. From all these documentary
evidence and oral evidence, the plaintiffs are able to
prove that, Sri. P. Chandrasekaran died on 20-02-
1999. As such, he executing the sale deed vide Ex. D-
1 dated 28-10-2010 does not arise at all.
14(s) The entire dispute in this case revolves round
Ex. D-1, the sale deed stated to have been executed by
Sri. P. Chandrasekaran in favour of the defendant No. 1 on
28-10-2010. The plaintiffs term the said sale deed marked
as Ex. D-1 as an out and out forged, concocted, created,
fabricated document. According to them, defendant No. 1,
the persons who have attested into the sale deed, an
unknown person and the scribe have colluded to concoct the
sale deed as though Sri. P. Chandrasekaran has executed
the same.
14(t). A retiring official has to give the details to the
employer about his date of birth, date of retirement, his
Bank details, and present address so as to enable the
JUDGMENT 32 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
employer to prepare pension papers and other retirement
monitory benefits. The copy of the details containing all the
information in Form-5 has been produced by the plaintiffs at
Ex. P-21. The date of birth of ” Sri.. P Chandrasekar ” is
shown as ” 02-06-1936 “. His permanent address is shown
as ” No. 19, 9th cross, 5th main, Krishnappa block,
Ganganagar, Bangalore “. Even in the Death Certificate
at Ex. P-7, the address mentioned as ” No. 19, 9th cross,
5th main, Krishnappa block, Ganganagar, Bangalore-
32 “. These documents have not been challenged by the
defendant No. 1 in any manner.
14(u). If we take Date of Birth of Sri. P Chandrasekar
as ” 02-06-1936 ” he would have 74 years in the year
2010 but the age shown in the document i.e., in Ex. D-1,
sale deed dated 28-10-2010, is 64 years. The address
shown in the Ex. D-1 is ” No. 48, 1st floor, Venkataraya
Layout, Palace Guttahalli, Bangalore-560 003″ which is
contrary to the address of Sri. P. Chadrashekara.
JUDGMENT 33 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
14(v). The P.w.-1 has produced his family photograph
as Ex. P-19 which is taken in a marriage. He identified a
person as his father who is sitting on the left side of the
bridegroom. Though, the P.w-1 was cross examined, even
remotely, no suggestion was put to him that, the person
sitting next to the bridegroom is not of his father.
14(w). The D. w.-1 identifies the plaintiff No. 1 in Ex. P-
19 as Ex. P-19(b) and the defendant No. 2 in Ex. P-19 as
Ex. P-19(c). In the Ex. P-31, original pass book of the
plaintiff also we can see the photo of the plaintiff No. 1.
The photo identified as Ex. P-19(b) matches with the photo
found in Ex. P-31. The Ex. P-19 and 31 are scanned and re-
produced herein for better appreciation of the evidence on
record. The same runs as under :-
JUDGMENT 34 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
Usually parents / elder couples give pose along with bride
and bridegroom in a marriage/marriage-reception/family
JUDGMENT 35 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
functions. In Ex. P-19 also, the plaintiff No. 1 and her
husband, Sri. P. Chandrasekharan gave pose to the
photograph. When we compare the photo of Sri. P
Chandrasekharan which is found in Ex. P-19 with the
Ex. D-1, it is not of a same person. The photo found in
Ex. D-1 looks of a middle-age person. Therefore, the
contention of the defendant No. 1 that,
Sri. P Chandrasekharan i.e., the husband of the plaintiff No.
1 and the father of the plaintiff Nos. 2, 3, and the defendant
No. 2 executed the sale deed vide Ex. D-1 cannot be
acceptable. Considering the age, address and photo in the
Ex. D-1, the contention of the learned counsel for the
plaintiffs that, the Ex. D-1 is forged, fabricated, created,
concocted and illegal cannot be ill-founded.
14(x). The P.w.-1 was thrice suggested during the
course of cross examination that his father executed the
Ex. D-1 and the witness emphatically denied the
suggestions.
JUDGMENT 36 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
14(y). It is the Contention of the defendant in the
written statement that an agreement was entered into for
sale suit property with Sri. P Chandrasekharan on 30th
September 2010 and the defendant No. 1 gave him
Rs. 1,00,000/- as earnest money and an additional
agreement was entered into by paying Rs. 27,00,000/- as
further earnest money on 27th October 2010. Though, the P
w.-1 was cross examined, even remotely, no suggestion
was put to him that, his father executed agreement of sale
and an additional agreement of sale by receiving advance
sale consideration amount to the tune of Rs. 28,00,000/.
This Court has perused the documents produced/marked by
the defendant No. 1 before the Court but no such
agreements are available on record. Non-production of such
vital documents/instruments give rise to an adverse
inference Under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. Either it
will have to be infer that, the defendant No. 1 has not
entered into agreement of sale in respect of suit property
with 1st plaintiff’s husband, Sri. P Chandrashekaran or if
JUDGMENT 37 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
those documents are produced it will be un-favourable to
the case/contentions of the defendant No. 1.
14(z). The two attesting witnesses to the Ex. D-1 are
Sri. K. Ravi Shankar and Sri. Syed Illyas Ali. The names of
the fathers of these two witnesses are not mentioned in
Ex. D-1. The name of the Scribe is Abdul Lateef Khan to the
Ex. D-1 who happens to be an advocate by profession.
None of these persons was examined before the Court to
vouch safe the Ex. D-1. The non-examination of a material
attesting witness by the defendant No. 1 who relies upon
Ex. D-1 enables the court to draw an adverse inference
U/s.114(g) of Evidence Act.
14(aa). During the course of cross examination, the D
w.-1 deposes that she was working for JDS Party and was
doing social work till the death of her husband in the year
2011. It has come in the evidence that her husband had
three cars and he used to rent those cars to the Windsor
Manor Hotel. It has come in her evidence that, she has four
children. It has come in evidence that she sold her two gold
JUDGMENT 38 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
bangles and neck chain and got Rs. 1,24,000/- but, in the
written statement she has averred that she has given Rs.
28,00,000/- as advance amount. How could she manage to
get such a big amount is not forthcoming.
14(ab). A bona fide purchaser (innocent buyer) must act
with reasonable care to be legally protected. This means
reviewing the title deed (ownership document) and getting a
legal opinion to confirm the seller truly owns the asset and
no hidden claims exist. Normally when a sale deed is
executed all original documents of title, possession, tax paid
receipts, allotment letter including earlier deeds, if any,
would be handed over to the purchaser. If really,
Sri. P Chandrashekaran had executed a sale deed vide
Ex. D-1 and all the original documents had been handed
over to Defendant No.1 on the date of sale i.e., 28-10-2010,
P.w.-1 could not have been in custody of all the originals,
Ex. P-2 to 6 & 8, allotment letter, intimation of releasing of
site from the B D A, sale deed, BDA certificate, Possession
certificate, and tax paid receipt respectively.
JUDGMENT 39 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
14(ac). A sale deed cannot be impeached solely on the
ground of inadequacy of consideration. It could be one of
the grounds while attacking the genuineness of a sale deed.
Ex. D-1 is dated 28-10-2010 and the sale consideration
shown as Rs. 48,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that the
defendant No. 1 executed a registered agreement of sale in
respect of suit property in favour the defendant No. 4 on
21-02-2015 and the sale consideration is shown as
Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Within a period of 4 years 4 months, the
property value has become more than double. It means the
sale consideration amount shown in Ex. D-1 is an imaginary
one/Fictitious.
14(ad). The D.w.-1 feels ignorance as to the
suggestion that Sri. Chadrashekaran deid on 20-02-1999.
She further feels ignorance as to the suggestion that the
photograph on Ex. D-1 is not of Sri. P. Chandrashekaran
and the signature and thumb impression found on Ex. D-1 is
not of Sri. P. Chandrashekaran. It is significant to note that
she has not denied the suggestions. It is useful to refer to a
JUDGMENT 40 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
decision reported in A I R 1967 Supreme Court 109 in
between Jahuri Sah and others Vs. Dwarika Prasad
Jhunjhunwala and others to contend that the defendant
No. 1 has no knowledge of a fact pleaded by the plaintiffs is
not tantamount to a denial of existence of fact, not even an
implied denial.
14(ae). It is not in dispute that the defendant No. 1
appeared and filed her written statement before the Court.
She filed the written statement on 11-03-2014. She has a
knowledge about pendency of the present suit. But she
ventures to enter into a registered agreement of sale with
the defendant No. 4 on 21-02-2015 vide Ex. P-27. If she
is really bonafide purchaser, what made her to enter into
agreement of sale within 4 to 5 years from the date of
purchase that too when the suit is pending consideration, is
not forthcoming. The plaintiffs are able to prove that Sri. P
Chandrashekar purchased the suit property under a
registered sale deed and he died intestate on 28-10-1999
and on his death, they being the legal heirs along with the
JUDGMENT 41 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
defendant No. 2 have become the absolute owners of the
suit property. Since Sri. P Chandrashekar died on 28-02-
1999, the sale deed purported to be executed by one P
Chandrashekar in favour of the defendant No. 1 on 28-10-
2010 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The
defendant No. 1 failed to prove that she is a Bonafide
purchaser and therefore, this Court answers issue Nos. 1 &
2 in the Affirmative and issue No. 8 in the Negative.
15. I S S U E Nos. 3 to 5, & 10 :
It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, though the
defendant No. 1 has not derived any right, title, interest
over the suit property illegally executed a registered
agreement of sale in respect of the suit property in favour of
the defendant No. 4 who inturn without the knowledge of
the plaintiffs put-up an unauthorised shed in the suit
property. The plaintiffs are able prove their ownership and
the sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 1 is not binding
on them vide above issues. When the defendant No. 1
herself had no right, title and interest over the suit property,
JUDGMENT 42 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011the defendant No. 4 cannot claim right over the suit
property under the agreement of sale and the same is also
non-est in the eye of law. Since, the defendant No. 4
remained absent before the Court, the assertions of the
plaintiffs remained un-challenged and as such, these issues
are answered Affirmatively.
16. I S S U E No. 6 :
The court orders damages in the form of money to put
the parties back in the position the parties were in before
the bad act happened. This Court has perused the evidence
of D w.1 and there is no focus on this aspect in the evidence
placed on record. Herein this case, plaintiffs have not lost
anything and as such, this issue is answered in the
Negative.
17. I S S U E No. 7 :
There is no dispute that the defendant No. 2 is also one
of the heirs of the deceased-Sri. P. Chadrashekar and after
his death, he will also get his legitimate share. Admittedly,
JUDGMENT 43 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011the defendant No. 2 has not come to the court by filing
partition suit and paid any court fee. In fact, he has not
contested the suit and as such, this issue is answered
accordingly.
18. I S S U E No. 9 : Though, the defendant No. 1 has
taken up clear stand that, the suit is not properly valued
and the Court Fee paid is insufficient, the same has not
been amplified in any manner. This Court has perused the
evidence of the plaintiffs’ and the defendants’ side. There is
no focus on this aspect in the evidence placed on record.
Admittedly, the suit has been valued under Sec.24(a), 26(c)
and Section 38 of the Karnataka Court Fee and suits
Valuation Act, 1958. The market value of the suit property
shown as Rs. 48,00,000/-(consideration amount shown in
the sale deed vide Ex. D-1) and the Court fee of
Rs. 197,125 + 25 is paid. They have paid fixed Court fee on
the relief of declaration, recovery of possession, permanent
injunction and mandatory injunction.
JUDGMENT 44 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
18(a). Under Section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court-
Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, when a plaintiff files
a suit for a declaratory decree that includes a request to
recover possession of the property, the court fee must
be paid based on either the market value of the property
or ₹1,000, whichever amount is higher. Admittedly the
suit has been valued under section 24(a) of the
Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958.
The said provision is extracted below :-
24. Suits for declaration. – In a suit for a
declaratory decree or order, whether with or
without consequential relief, not falling under
section 25,-
(a) where the prayer is for a declaration and for
possession of the property to which the declaration
relates, fee shall be computed on the market value
of the property or on 1 [rupees one thousand] ,
whichever is higher;
18(b). The court fee for a suit for declaration and
recovery of possession is an ad valorem fee computed
JUDGMENT 45 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
on the market value of the property. The relevant
article is extracted below-
SCHEDULE I
Ad valorem fee
Article Particulars Proper Fee
(1) (2) (3)
1. Plaint, written statement pleading a set off or
counterclaim or memorandum of appeal presented to any
court. When the amount or value of the subject matter in
dispute,–
(xii) exceeding rupees Rupees 1,77,125 plus 2½
40,00,000 but per centum of the amount
not exceeding exceeding rupees 40,00,000
rupees 50,00,000
As per Article 1(xii) of the Schedule I of the Karnataka
Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, if the market value of
the property exceeding rupees 40,00,000 but not
exceeding rupees 50,00,000, the Court fee is
₹ 1,77,125/- plus 2 ½ percentum of the amount
exceeding rupees 40,00,000/- i.e.,:-
For ₹ Court fee would 1,77,125/-
40,00,000/- be
JUDGMENT 46 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
For ₹ 8,00,000 X 2.5 20,000/-
8,00,000/- 100
Total amount 1,97,125/-
18(c). This Court has perused the valuation and
the court fee paid on the plaint to the tune of
₹ 197,150/-. Which is as per the above stated
provision. Nothing has been placed on record to doubt
the valuation made in the valuation slip. This Court
does not find any reasons to disbelieve the value
arrived at by the plaintiffs and consequential Court Fee
of ₹ 197,150/-paid by them. Accordingly, this Court
answers this issue in the Negative holding that the suit
is properly valued and Court fee paid is correct.
19. I S S U E No. 11 : In view of the above findings, this
Court proceeds to pass the following :-
::ORDER::
JUDGMENT 47 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with
costs.
The defendants are directed to demolish
unauthorized construction put up in the suit
property and hand over the vacant possession
to the plaintiffs within 90 days from today. In
the event the defendants not complied with
the directions, the plaintiffs are at liberty to
get the illegal construction demolished at the
costs of the defendant Nos. 1, 3 & 4
preferably by getting a competent Engineer
appointed to that effect.
It is further ordered that the Sale Deed
No. HBB-1-01816-2010-11 dated 28-10-2010
on the file of the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Hebbala, Bangalore and Agreement of Sale
Deed No. BYP-1-05085/2014-15 dated 21-02-
2015 on the file of the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bangalore do not
bind the plaintiffs and consequentially invalid.
Send a copy of the decree to the office of the
Sub-registrars, Hebbala as well as
Byatarayanapura, Bangalore under section
31(2) of the specific Relief Act, 1963.Draw decree accordingly.
JUDGMENT 48 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the Computer, Computerized
by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this 30th
day of June, 2026)(Vijaya Devaraja Urs)
XVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
::ANNEXURES::
1 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFFS :-
P w.-1 : Wg. Cdr G. Ravikumar,
P w.-2 : Sri. B. Sankar,
P w.-3 : Sri. V. Ravi Mohitay,
P w.-4 : Sri. Vinayak D Kamath
2. LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFFS :-
Ex. P-1 : Notarized copy of Special Power
of Attorney dt. 12-04-2011,
Ex. P-2 : Original allotment letter issued by
NTI Employees' Housing Co-
operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru
dt. 16-09-1976,Ex. P-3 : Release of site issued by NTI
Employees’ Housing Co-operative
Ltd., in favour of plaintiff’s father,
JUDGMENT 49 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011Ex. P-4 : Original Sale Deed dt. 31-01-77
issued by NTI Employees’ Housing
Co-operative Ltd.,Ex. P-5 : Khata Certificate,
Ex. P-6 : Possession Certificate dt.15-10-
1978 issued by NTI Employees’
Housing Co-operative Ltd.,
Ex. P-6(a) Signature of plaintiff’s father,
Ex. P-7 : Death Certificate of plaintiff’s
father,
Ex. P-8 : Tax Paid Receipt,
Ex. P-9 : Legal Notice dt. 05-05-2011,
Ex. P-10 : RPAD Cover,
Ex. P-11 : Uttar Patra dtd. 24-01-2011,
Ex. P-12 : Khata Certificate dt.27-01-2011,
Ex. P-13 : Khata Extract,
Ex. P-14 : Sale Deed dt. 28-10-2010 in
favour of the defendant,
Ex. P-15 : Certified Copy of Sale Deed dt. 31-
01-1977,
Ex. P-16 : Encumbrance Certificate,
Ex. P-17 : The Police Complaint filed before
Hebbala Police dtd. 12.04.2011,
Ex. P-18 : Certified Copy of FIR in respect of
Ex.P-17,
JUDGMENT 50 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
Ex. P-19 & : Family photograph with Compact
19(a) Disc,
Ex. P-21 : Certified Copy of Form No.5 issued
by National T. B. Institute,
Bengaluru.
Ex. P-22 : Aadhar card of P w.3,
Ex. P-23 : Police Complaint dt. 23-02-2018,
Ex. P-24 : Police Acknowledgement,
Ex. P-25 : Certified Copy of police
Endorsement,
Ex. P-26 : Certified Copy of Endorsement
Certificate dt. 14-09-2018,
Ex. P-27 : Certified Copy of the sale agreement
dt. 21-02-2015,
Ex. P-28 : Covering letter issued by Sub-
Registrar along with sale deed and its
enclousers,
Ex. P-29 & : Pension documents,
30
Ex. P-31 : Original Passbook,
Ex. P-32 : Letter dt. 08-01-2020 issued by
SBI,
Ex. P-33 : Certified Copy of the judgment in
O.S. No.642/2020 dt. 02-05-2025.
3. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT/S :-
JUDGMENT 51 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
D.w.-1 : Sri. Yasmin Ali.
4. LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
DEFENDANT/S :-
Ex. D-1 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 28-
10-2010,
Ex. D-2 : Khata Extract,
Ex. D-3 : Tax Paid Receipt,
Ex. D-4 : Certified Copy of letter dt. 02-05-
2011,
Ex. D-5 : Covering letter issued by Public
Information Officer,
Ex. D-6 : Attested copy of Khata Application,
Ex. D-7 : Attested copy of Uttar Pathra,
Ex. D-8 : Attested copy of Death Certificate,
Ex. D-8(a) : Name of the deceased plaintiff,
Ex. D-9 : Attested copy of Affidavit of
Dharani Bai,
Ex. D-10 : Attested copy of Affidavit of
Ganesh Shivakumar,
Ex. D-11 : Aadhaar Card of D w.1,
Ex. D-12 : Certified copy judgment in C. C.
No.9818/2014.
JUDGMENT 52 CCH-10
O.S. NO. 4286/2011
(Vijaya Devaraja Urs)
XVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
