1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDIL CIVIL JUDGE ( Sr.Div), AT

MAGADI, RAMANAGAAM DISTRICT

O.S.NO.83/2010

BETWEEN :

Smt. Chikkathayamma & others .Plaintiffs

AND

Sri. Narashimhaiah & Another Defendants

PLAINTIFF CHIEF EXAMINATION BY WAY OF AFFIDAVIT

I, N. Srinivasha S/o Late Narashimhamurty, Age25

years, residing at Donnenahalli Village, Tavarekere Hobali,
Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District and presently
Reseding at Kenchnapalya, Kengeri Hobali, Bangalore South
Taluk, Bangalore District. Now at Magadi do hereby solemnly
affirm and state on oath as follows;

1. I am the 2nd plaintiff in the above suit and I well

conversant with the facts of the case, the 1 st plaintiff is my
mother, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are my brothers. Hence I swear
to this affidavit and on behalf of other plaintiffs also.

2. I state that we have filed the above suit seeking for a

judgment and decree for partition and separate possession of
the suit schedule property against the defendants.

3. I submits that, the 1st plaintiff is my mother, 3rd and 4th

plaintiffs are my brothers. and 1 st defendant is my grand
father, we are all joint family members. the suit schedule
Item No.1 & 2 properties are my joint family properties, even
till to day no partition effect between me and them and
cultivating jointly. but the 2nd defendant is entirely stranger
 2

to my family and suit schedule property, and he is now

trying to purchase the suit Item No.1 schedule property,
Hence I made as a necessary party in this suit.

4. I further submits that, One Poojaraiah @ Adinakadara

was the Moolapurusha of the our family. The said Poojaraiah
@ Adinakadara had a son by name Narashimhaiah who is 1 st
defendant herein. The 1st defendant had one son by name
Narashimhamurthy and Two daughters by names Lakamma
and Lakshmamma (died and issue less). and the said
Narashimhamurthy also died on 11-11-2009 leaving behind
his wife Smt. Chikkathayamma 1st plaintiff herein and his
sons are plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 in the above case, we are only
his legal hairs.

5. I submit that, we and 1st defendant are absolute owner

in peaceful joint possession and enjoyment of the land
bearing Sy.No: 37, measuring 1 acre 25 guntas and Sy. No.
01, measuring 03 guntas both are situated at Donnenahalli
Village, Tavarekere Hobali, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore
District, which are more fully described in the schedules Item
No. 1 & 2. in the suit.

6. I further submit that, the schedule properties bearing

Sy. 37, measuring 1 are 25 guntas, and Sy No. 01, measuring
03 guntas both are situated at Donnenahalli village,
Tavarekere Hobali, Bangalore South Taluk were the Thoti
Service Inam Lands. My forefather by namely Poojaraiah @
Adinakadara was the Thoti of the Donnenahalli village, an
account of Thoti service during his life time, he had filed an
application before the Tahasildhar, Magadi Taluk, Magadi,
Bangalore Rural District, for re-grant of the schedule lands
i.e., Item No. 1& 2 of the schedule properties, during
 3

pendency of the said HOA proceedings, he died leaving

behind 1st defendant and my father.

7. I submits that, after death of the my forefather late

Poojaraiah @ Adinakadara his son i.e., 1 st defendant and my
father were are in cultivate and peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the schedule properties jointly. later my gand
father by name Narashimhaiah (1st defendant herein) has
filed application before the Office of the Tahasildhar, Magadi
Taluk Magadi to re-granting the suit schedule property in his
favour. The Tahasildhar, Magadi has registered the case vide
No. HOA(H) No. 52/79-80, and after conducting an enquiry
the Tahsildhar has re-granted suit schedule property in the
name of the 1st defendant vide its order 07th May 1981. under
the guise of the above said order the 1 st defendant has
approached the concerned Revenue Officers and obtained
Khatha in his favour and his names has been mutated in the
Revenue Documents.

8. I further state that, myself, other plaintiffs and 1 st

defendant are Hindu Undivided Joint Family Members. the 1 st
defendant is my grand father and father in-law of the 1 st
plaintiff. and the my father late Narashimhamurthy was son
of the 1st defendant, who is no more and he died on 11-11-
2009 leaving behind me and my mother and my brothers as
his only legal heirs. The suit schedule properties are Thoti
Inam Lands till today between us and the 1st defendant and
my joint family there is no partition effected among them. till
to day we are cultivate and enjoying the schedule properties
jointly. Hence my father was entitled share over the
schedule properties, but now he is no more for which myself
and my mother and my brother are joint entitled share
over schedule Item No. 1 & 2 properties.
 4

9. I further state that, myself and my brother and my

mother are demanded to effect partition over the schedule
properties during the month of March-2010 and the same
has been denied by the 1st defendant on 07-03-2010. and the
myself and along with other plaintiffs have convened a
panchayath in the presence of my family elders, well wishers
and family friends and we are demanded to effect partition
and separate possession over the schedule properties
wherein the 1st defendant has refused to do the same.

10. I further state that, on 14-03-2010 when myself and

other plaintiffs are in possession over the suit Item No.1 of
schedule property The 2nd defendant herein along with his
friends came near the schedule property and trying to
interfere with the my peaceful possession over Item No.1 of
the schedule property. At that time my self and other
plaintiffs are questioned the 2nd defendant regarding
interference, later the 2nd defendant had shown the Xerox
Copy of the Agreement of Sale dated 31-01-2007 executed by
the 1st defendant in favour of the 2 nd defendant and he
claiming that he had purchasing the item No. 1 of the
schedule property from the 1st defendant for a total sale
Consideration amount of Rs. 49,00,000/-. out of which he
paid a advance amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- by cash to the 1 st
defendant. However with great difficulty I have collected the
Xerox Copy of the Agreement of Sale, this fact is clearly to
shows that behind back of us, the 1st defendant is trying to
sold Item No. 1 of the schedule property to the 2 nd defendant
by depriving our legitimate right, title, and interest over the
schedule properties and at any movement the 1 st defendant
has alienate the schedule properties to the 2 nd defendant and
other persons. If he is alienate the same it will leads to
 5

multiplicity proceedings and caused to the injury to the me

and other plaintiffs. Hence the 1st defendant has restrained
by this Honble Court by way of granting permanent
injunction till disposal of the above suit. Hence this suit.

11. The cause of action for suit arose on 07-03-2010, when

we are demanded for partition and separate possession over
the suit schedule properties and subsequent dates and which
are within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court. and further I
have produced Certified Copies of the Geanological Tree,
Index of Land, RTC (years1989-90 to 93-94), HOA (M) No:
254-3/ 69-70, Order Copy and HOA(R) No: 52/79-80, RTC
(years 2007-08 to 2009-2010) and Copy of the Agreement of
Sale Dt: 31-01-2007, in the above case and the same may
kindly be marked as Exhibits.

WHEREFORE, I pray that this Honble Court be pleased

to pass a Judgement and Decree against the defendants in
my favour, as prayed in the plaint.

What is stated above is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief.

Identified by me,

Advocate
Magadi DEPONENT
Date:
No. of Corrections;
 6

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDIL CIVIL JUDGE ( Sr.Div), AT

MAGADI, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT

O.S.NO. 83/2010

BETWEEN :

Smt. Chikkathayamma and others .Plaintiffs

AND

Sri. Narashimhaiah & Another Defendants

I.A.NO. /2011

Smt. Chikkathayamma
& Others ...Applicant/Plaintiff

AND
Sri. Narashimahiah & Another Opponents/Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 17 R/W SECTION

151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying

affidavit, the plaintiffs most respectfully pray that this
Honble Court be pleased to permit them to amend the plaint
as follows ;
PROPOSED AMENDMENT SOUGHT FOR :
A). To be amend in cause title of the plaintiff present address
in the plaint as Kengeri Hobali, in stead of Tavarekere
Hobali.

in the above case in the interest of justice and equity.

Magadi

Dated : 21-2-2011 Advocate for plaintiffs

 7

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDIL CIVIL JUDGE ( Sr.Div), AT

MAGADI, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT

O.S.NO. 83/2010

BETWEEN :

Smt. Chikkathayamma and others .Plaintiffs

AND

Sri. Narashimhaiah & Another Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, N. Srinivasha S/o Late Narashimhamurty, Age25

years, residing at Donnenahalli Village, Tavarekere Hobali,
Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore District and presently
Reseding at Kenchnapalya, Kengeri Hobali, Bangalore South
Taluk, Bangalore District. Now at Magadi do hereby solemnly
affirm and state on oath as follows;

1. I am the 2nd plaintiff in the above suit and I well

conversant with the facts of the case, the 1 st plaintiff is my
mother, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs are my brothers. Hence I swear
to this affidavit and on behalf of other plaintiffs also.

2. I state that we have filed the above suit seeking for a

judgment and decree for partition and separate possession of
the suit schedule property against the defendants.

3. I submits that, at time of filing of this suit I have no

given our correct present residence address to my counsel for
which my counsel was mentioned in the cause tactile of this
suit that Taverekere Hobali instead of Kengeri Hobali, this I
came to me recently when I was preferring for Evidence.
Hence now I have filing this application for amendment of
plaint. Hence this Application.
 8

4. I submit that if the application is not allowed I will be

put to hardship and injury and on the other hand we would
be put to great inconvenience and hardship if the
accompanying application is not allowed.

WHEREFORE; I most respectfully prays that this

Honble Court be pleased to allow the accompanying
application, in the interest of justice and equity.

What is stated above is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge, information and belief.
Identified by me,

Advocate
Magadi DEPONENT
Date:
No. of Corrections;
 9

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT BANGALORE

I.A.NO. /2010
IN
O.S.NO.1581/2007

BETWEEN

Sri. Srinivas Kathavate

and others Plaintiffs

AND

Sri. Shamsundar @ Vinod Kathavate

& other Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VI RULE 17 OF THE CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The plaintiffs most respectfully pray that, for the

reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit this Honble
Court be pleased to permit the plaintiffs to amend the plaint
by including the following paragraphs at the appropriate
paras for just and proper adjudication of the suit, in the
interest of justice and equity.

INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING AFTER PARA-7

7(a) The father of the parties, late Sri. Krishna Rao S.

Kathavate, was working as Assistant Chief Accountant in
Reserve Bank of India when he attained the age of
Superannuation. After his retirement he invested upon
Schedule A Property for its renovation and improvement. A
substantial portion of his retirement benefits was given to the
2nd defendant for the purpose of purchasing a property at
Subramanyanagar in the year 1996 which is morefully
described in Schedule C. The 2 nd defendant got married in
 10

the year 1987 October, by the time the 1 st defendant had

moved out to a house which belonged to his wife.

7(b) the 2nd defendant and the 1st plaintiff lived together with
their parents. It was in the year 1990 the 1 st plaintiff took up
Higher Studies in Engineering upon accruing sufficient funds
from his job as Assistant Executive Engineer at ITI Ltd
Bangalore. After completion of his studies the 1 st plaintiff took
up a job in the US and from his earnings he used to
contribute to the joint family comprised of his parents and
the 2nd defendant along with his family.

7(c) During the year 2001, the mother of the parties

developed serious problem with her kidneys. At this juncture,
the defendant moved to Schedule C property and started
living separately without caring for the aged parents.
Thereafter the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs have taken care of their
father and mother by shifting them to Hubli. On 18.01.2002
the mother of the parties died of total failure of her kidneys at
Hubli. It is thereafter the 2nd defendant approached his father
and with his financial assistance he purchased a property in
the name of his wife bearing No.65 situated at 9 th phase, 2nd
Block, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, which is morefully described in
Schedule D.

7(d) It is submitted that, the 2nd defendant has purchased

the Schedule C and D Properties from out of the joint family
earnings of the members of the family as there has not been a
partition between them. In the meanwhile the 2 nd defendant
has sold the Schedule D property without the consent and
knowledge of any of the members of family including plaintiffs
for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.10,94,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lakhs Ninety four thousand only) to one Sri. C.S.
 11

Manjunatha Prasad, through a registered sale deed dated

16.11.2006. Since the Schedule- C and D properties are joint
family properties, the plaintiffs have legitimate share in the
schedule C and D properties also.

ADD THE FOLLOWING AFTER SCHEDULE B

SCHEDULE-C
Residential house property bearing Khataha No.1235/F
(New No.35/3), situated at No.1235/F, 4 th Main, E Block,
Subramanya Nagar, Bangalore, measuring East-West: 20 feet
and North to South 30 feet consisting of ground and first
floor, bounded by:

East : Road,
West :
North :
South : Road,

SCHEDULE-D
House Property bearing No.65, situated at 9 th Phase, 2nd
Block, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore, measuring East-West: 30 feet,
North-South: 40.5 feet, bounded by:

East : Site No.64

West : Site No.66
North: Site No.42
South : Road

Bangalore Advocate for Plaintiffs

Date: 05.04.2010

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT BANGALORE

O.S.NO.1581/2007

BETWEEN
 12

Sri. Srinivas Kathavate

and others Plaintiffs
AND
Sri. Shamsundar @ Vinod Kathavate
& other Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Srinivas Kathavate, S/o Late Krishnarao S.Kathavate,

aged about 47 years, residing at Sobha Jade 010, Sobha
Suburbia, Jakkur, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore-560064, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows;

1. I am the 1st plaintiff in the above suit, well conversant

with the facts of the case, hence I swear to the contents of
this affidavit on behalf of the other two plaintiffs as I have
been authorized to do so and also on my behalf.

2. I state that we have filed the above suit seeking for a

judgment and decree for partition and separate possession of
the suit schedule property against the defendants.

3. I state that, the plaintiffs and defendants in the above

suit were made to sit in a mediation through well wishers to
settle the matter amicably by paying a sum of Rs.
11,10,000/- to each of the coparceners and separately Rs
4,50,000 to Plaintiff #1 as per their deceased fathers written
wishes for relinquishment of their rights. But the 2 nd
defendant failed to make payment in time (December, 20,
2006 by 5:00 PM). None of us had entered into any
agreement of sale of Schedule A property to the 2 nd
defendant and we have not received any money as advance.
But the 2nd defendant has alleged that there was a sale
agreement in respect of Schedule A property in his
application under Order VIII Rule 9 R/W Order 6 Rule 17
 13

dated 10.12.2008. In the said application the 2nd defendant

has also contended that he has sold a property bearing site
No.65, situated at 9th Phase, 2nd Block, J.P. Nagar. All these
facts were not in our knowledge. Therefore we could not
plead the facts which are now being pleaded in the
accompanying application. Certain facts about two more joint
family properties were made know to us by the 2 nd defendant
in his application dated 10.12.2008.

4. I state that the accompanying application be allowed for

proper adjudication of the dispute. Since none of us had any
knowledge of two more properties, we did not plead them in
our plaint. Non mentioning of these facts is neither
intentional nor deliberate and no prejudice would be caused
to defendants if accompanying application is allowed. But
great hard ship and injury would cause to us, which can not
be compensated in any manner, if the application is not
allowed.

WHEREFORE; I most respectfully pray for orders as

sought for in the accompanying application, in the interest of
justice and equity.

Identified by me,

DEPONENT
Advocate
Bangalore
Date: 05.04.2010
No. of Corrections;
 14

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT BANGALORE

I.A.NO. /2010
IN
O.S.NO.1581/2007

BETWEEN

Sri. Srinivas Kathavate

and others Plaintiffs

AND

Sri. Shamsundar @ Vinod Kathavate

& other Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) OF THE CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying

affidavit, the plaintiffs most respectfully pray that this

Honble Court be pleased to permit the plaintiffs to implied

the following person as party as 3rd defendant, in the interest

of justice and equity.

PROPOSED DEFENDANT:-

1. C.S. Manjunatha Prasad

S/o C.V.Srinivasa Iyair
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at 121, Shanthi Sadana,
Cambridege Road,
Udani Layout, Ulsoor,
Bangalore-560008.

Bangalore
Date: 05.04.2010 Advocate for Plaintiffs

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT BANGALORE
 15

O.S.NO.1581/2007

BETWEEN

Sri. Srinivas Kathavate

and others Plaintiffs
AND
Sri. Shamsundar @ Vinod Kathavate
& other Defendants

AFFIDAVIT

I, Srinivas Kathavate, S/o Late Krishnarao S.Kathavate,

aged about 47 years, residing at Sobha Jade 010, Sobha
Suburbia, Jakkur, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore-560064, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows;

1. I am the 1st plaintiff in the above suit, well conversant

with the facts of the case, hence I swear to the contents of
this affidavit on behalf of the other two plaintiffs as I have
been authorized to do so and also on my behalf.

2. I state that we have filed the above suit seeking for a

judgment and decree for partition and separate possession of
the suit schedule property against the defendants.

3. I state that, the plaintiffs and defendants in the above

suit were made to sit in a mediation through well wishers to
settle the matter amicably by paying a sum of Rs.
11,10,000/- to each of the coparceners and separately Rs
4,50,000 to 1st Plaintiff as per our deceased fathers written
wishes for relinquishment of rights. But the 2 nd defendant
failed to make payment in time (December, 20, 2006 by 5:00
PM). None of us had entered into any agreement of sale of
Schedule A property to the 2 nd defendant and we have not
received any money as advance. But the 2 nd defendant has
 16

alleged that there was a sale agreement in respect of

Schedule A property in his application under Order VIII Rule
9 R/W Order 6 Rule 17 dated 10.12.2008. In the said
application the 2nd defendant has also contended that he has
sold a property bearing site No.65, situated at 9 th Phase, 2nd
Block, J.P. Nagar, in favour of one Sri. C.S.Manjunath Prasad
through a registered sale deed dated 16.11.2006. The 2 nd
Defendant has sold the above said property without the
consent and knowledge of either the plaintiffs or the 1 st
defendant though the 2nd defendant had purchased the said
property form out of the joint family earnings. Therefore the
purchaser of the above said property is a necessary party in
this proceeding for just and proper adjudication of the
matter.

4. I state that the accompanying application be allowed for

proper adjudication of the dispute. Since none of us had any
knowledge of two more properties, we did not plead them in
our plaint. Non inclusion of Sri. C.S.Manjunath Prasad as a
party defendant when the suit was filed was neither
intentional nor deliberate but for the bonafide reason that we
were not aware of the fact that the property bearing site
No.65, at J.P.Nagar Bangalore, was sold.

5. I state that no prejudice would be caused to defendants if

accompanying application is allowed. But great hard ship and
injury would cause to us, which can not be compensated in
any manner, if the application is not allowed.

WHEREFORE; I most respectfully pray for orders as

sought for in the accompanying application, in the interest of
justice and equity.
 17

Identified by me,

DEPONENT
Advocate
Bangalore
Date: 05.04.2010