13 O.S.No.
4428/2006
PW-1
Witness called and duly sworn on 06.11.2013.
Examination in chief by Sri. Y. H. Advocate for plaintiff:
I have filed affidavit evidence in lieu of chief
examination in this case. The contents of my affidavit
are true and correct. It bears my signature.
Further examination in chief is deferred at the request.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court)
R.O.I. & A.C.
[T. VENKATESH NAIK]
XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
Witness called and duly sworn on 12-12-203.
Further examination in chief by Sri. Y. H. Advocate for:
I have produced affidavit [Genealogical tree] and it is
marked as Ex.P-1. Certified copy of the sale deed dated
30.10.1906 is marked as Ex.P-2. Typed copy of Ex.P-2 is
marked as Ex.P-2(a). Certified copy of the mortgage deed
dated 11.11.1908 is marked as Ex.P-3. Typed copy of
Ex.P-3 is marked as Ex.P-3(a). Two RTC extracts are
marked as Ex.P-4 & P-5. Certified copy of the atlas is
marked as Ex.P-6. Certified copy of Form No.7 is marked
as Ex.P-7. Certified copy of the order sheet in
L.R.F.No.1281/1974-75 is marked as Ex.P-8. Certified
14 O.S.No.4428/2006
PW-1
copy of the mahazar is marked as Ex.P-9. Typed copy of
Ex.P-9 is marked as Ex.P-9(a). Certified copy of the grant
certificate dated 24.03.1980 is marked as Ex.P-10.
Certified copy of the order in W.P.No.28331/1981 is
marked as Ex.P-11. Certified copy of the order in
L.R.A.No.707/1986 is marked as Ex.P-12. Certified
copies of IA and objections to IA in L.R.A.No.707/1986
are marked as Exs.P-13 & P-14. Certified copy of the civil
petition in C.P.No.8648/1991 [later converted to WP
No.25693/1993] is marked as Ex.P-15. The Statement of
objections filed in the said WP is marked as Ex.P-16.
Certified copy of the order sheet in WP NO.25693/1993 is
marked as Ex.P-17. Certified copy of the order in WP
No.25693/93 is marked as Ex.P-18. Certified copy of the
order in W.A.No.7992/1999 is marked as Ex.P-19.
Certified copy of the order sheet in LRF No.1281/1974-
75 is marked as Ex.P-20.
Certified copy of the order in C.P.No.864/2002 in
W.A.No.7992/99 is marked as Ex.P-21. The
advertisement published in Realty edition of Deccan
15 O.S.No.4428/2006
PW-1
Herald newspaper dated 12.02.2010 is marked as Ex.P-
22. The public notice issued by the plaintiff in Udayavani
and The Hindu newspapers dated 20.02.2010 are
marked as Exs.P-23 & P-24. Office copy of the legal
notice dated 25.02.2010 is marked as Ex.P-25. Two
postal receipts and UCP are marked as Exs.P-26 to P-28.
Reply notice dated 01.03.2010 is marked as Ex.P-29.
Office copy of the reply notice dated 08.03.2010 is
marked as Ex.P-30. Postal receipt and UCP are marked
as Exs.P-31 & P-32.
Cross-examination: Deferred at the request of counsel for
defendant.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court)
R.O.I. & A.C.
[T. VENKATESH NAIK]
XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
Witness called and duly sworn on 02.11.2015.
Cross-examination by Sri.K.P.P., Advocate for defendant No.1
and 2:
Now the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 have attained the age
of majority. I have filed an application for the discharge
as the minor guardian of plaintiff No.1 and2. The
16 O.S.No.4428/2006
PW-1
plaintiffs are not aware of the nature of the dispute,
therefore I have deposed as their mother.
The defendants No.1 and 2 don’t belong to our
family. The 8th defendant is my husband. The 8th
defendant is residing separately from us. Myself and the
plaintiffs are residing together. It is false to suggest that
even my husband to be residing along with me and that I
have deposed falsely to that effect. Myself and the
plaintiff are residing in Nagenahalli. We were residing at
Govindapura at the time of filing the suit. We are residing
at Nagenahalli from two years.
I don’t know that my husband and his two brothers
have filed O.S.No.16186/2005 before the Mayohall court,
Bengaluru. I don’t know if the defendants No.1 and 2 are
the parties in the said suit. It is false to suggest that the
said suit had gone in appeal before Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka and that I have filed the false suit against the
defendants.
It is true that Sy.No.35 has been sub divided into
Sy.No.35/1 to 35/14. It is true that sub division was
taken place between 1928 to 1935. It is true that the old
Sy.No.35 measures 22 acres 9 guntas. It is true that
Sy.No.35/13 measures two acres 37 guntas and
Sy.No.35/14 measures one acre 7 guntas. It is false to
suggest that the grand father of defendants by name
Burmanna has purchased the Sy.No.35/13 in a court
17 O.S.No.4428/2006
PW-1
auction dated 01.04.1909. It is true that this Burmanna
and his wife Mallamma had a daughter by name
Basamma.It is true that Basamma in marriage given to
Diary Rudrappa. Diary Rudrappa is the grand father of
defendants No.1 and 2. It is true that Diary Rudrappa
passed away very early. I don’t know if there has been
execution of settlement deed in 1935 between
Mariswamappa and R.Karibasappa, the children of Diary
Rudrappa. It is true that Karibasappa is the father of
defendants No.1 and 2. I don’t know if the Sy.No.35/13,
37/3 to have been allotted to the share of R.Karibasappa
the father of defendants No.1 and 2. It is false to suggest
that from 1936-37 to 1949-50, Karibasappa to have been
paying the tax to the Jodidhar Dravidappa. The
Chikkamuniya Bhovi and Doddamuniya Bhovi were said
to be paying the tax with regard to the suit schedule
property. The receipts in that regard have not produced
before the court. I have not seen such any tax paid
receipts. It is false to suggest that the occupancy rights
also to have been granted to Karibasappa in regard to
Sy.No.35/13 and 35/14. I don’t know if Chikkamuniya
Bhovi and Doddamuniya Bhovi or their children have
filed form No.7 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act in regard
to these survey numbers. It is true that the father of
defendants Karibasappa to have passed away in 1980. I
don’t know if the children of Karibasappa namely
18 O.S.No.4428/2006
PW-1
K.Basavarju, K.Nagaraj, K.Nanjundaswamy and
K.Guruswamy had submitted for the change of the
Khatha. It is false to suggest that these names appear in
the RTC from 1983-84 onwards. IHC10/1983-84 of the
land tribunal was orally questioned but we have not
preferred any appeal before the revenue authorities.
It is false to suggest that the defendants to be in
possession in suit schedule property from 100 years. It
is false to suggest that Chikkamuni Bhovi or Doddamuni
Bhovi to be not concerning to the suit schedule property.
It is false to suggest that illegal gain of the property I
have filed the false suit by making my husband has 8th
defendant. It is true that there is a built up area in the
suit schedule property. It is false to suggest that the suit
property was had never mortgaged.
Cross examination of remaining defendants is deferred.
(Typed to my dictation in the open court)
R.O.I. & A.C.
[Ms.VELA.D.K.]
XIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
