IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL

JUDGE ( Sr. Dvn) AND JMFC AT ANEKAL

O.S. No /2020

Between:
…Plaintiff
And
Sri.Yellareddy and others … Defendants
INDEX

S.N PARTICULARS P.N CF

Memorandum of plaint under Sec- 26

1
R/w O.7 R 1and 2 of C.P.C

2 Verifying affidavit

3 Valuation Slip Rs 200/-

Application under order 6 Rule 14 of

4
Civil Procedure Code

5 List of Documents

Application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2

6
r/w Sec 151 of Civil Procedure Code

7 Vakalath

8 Process Memo -

9 Court’s second copy

10 Defendants Copies

Place: Anekal
Date: Advocate for
Plaintiff

1|Page
 IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE ( Sr. Dvn) AND JMFC AT ANEKAL
O.S. No /2020

Between:

1.

…...plaintiff

And

1. Sri. Yellareddy,
S/o…….
….Defendants

MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1

AND 2 READ WITH SECTION 26 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.

The Plaintiffs most respectfully submits as follows:

The addresses of the parties for the purposes of issue of Summons,

Notices, etc., from this Hon’ble Court is as given in the cause title, the
Plaintiffs may also be served through their counsel "Eagle's Eye
Law Associates" Sri.Avinash.V, Hemalatha.D ,
Venkatesh K.M Advocates, #55, New Police Station Road,
K.R.Puram, Bengaluru -36

1. The addresses of the Defendants are as shown in the cause title of

this plaint.

2. The Plaintiff submit that the one Sri.Guru reddy is the common
ancestor of both plaintiff and Defendants. the Gurureddy and his

2|Page
 wife are no more now. The said Sri.Gurureddy have got two sons
namely 1) Sri. Muninanjappa and 2) Sri.Thippareddy , both Sri.
Muninanjappa and Thippareddy are no more now. The Said Sri.
Muninanjappa have got only one wife namely Smt.Gowramma.
The said Sri. Muninanjappa and Smt. Gowramma have got two
sons namely 1) Sri. Munireddy @ Annaiahreddy, 2)
Sri.Yellareddy who is referred as present Defendant No.1. The
above said Sri. Thippareddy and his two wives are also no more
now. The above said Sri. Munireddy @ Annaiahreddy was also
no more now. The Said Sri.Yellareddy and Smt.Gowramma have
got Four sons Namely 1) Smt.Venkatalaksmamma who is the
Defendant No.2 herein, 2) Smt.Shanthamma- the plaintiff ,3)
Smt.Sakamma @ puttamma-who is the Defendant No.3 herein,
4)Sri. Munivenkatareddy- who is the Defendant No.4 herein, 5)
Nagaraju who is the Defendant No.5 herein, 6) Sri.Ramesh
Reddy – who is the DEefendant No.6herein, 7) Sri.
Narayanaswamy- who is the Defendant No.7 herein,8)
Smt.Padma- who is the Defendant No.8m,herein respectively.The
Plaintiffs and Defendants constitute a Hindu Joint Family
governed by Mitakshara law of inheritance.

3. The Plaintiff further submits that the property bearing 10 Sy.

No.35/7 measurina 1 acre 12 ¾ guntas, 2) Sy. No.36 measuring 1
acre 20 guntas, 3) sy. No.24/2 Measuring 36 guntas, 4) Sy.No.87
measuring 11 ¾ guntas, 5) Sy.No. 40/3 measuring 18 guntas,6)
Sy.No.40/5 measuring 7 ½ guntas, 7) Sy. No. 76/3 measuring 2
guntas, 8) Sy.No.86 measuring 16 ¾ guntas, 9) Sy.No.47
measuring 1 guntas, 10) Sy.No.1/3 measuring 0.01/2 guntas all
the properties are situated at Billapura Village, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District and Property bearing 11)
Sy.No.36 measuring 1 acre 5 ½ guntas, 12) Sy. No.34/1

3|Page
 measuring 1 acre, 13) Sy.No.4 measuring 4 ½ guntas all the
properties are situated at Burugunte Village, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, the property bearing 14)
Sy.No. 206 measuring 1 acre 35 guntas situated at S. Medihalli
Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, 15)
Sy.No.51 measuring 7 ¾ guntas, 16) Sy.No.57/2 measuring 5 ¾
guntas , all the properties are situated at Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal
Taluk, Bangalore District, and 17) House property bearing
Khaneshmari bearing No.35/1 measuring 38x45 feets, 18) House
property bearing Khaneshmari bearing No.33 measuring 28x40
feets, situated at Billapura Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal
Taluk, Bangalore District. The suit schedule properties are the
joint and Ancestral properties of Plaintiff and Defendants.
Originally the suit schedule properties belong to common ancestr
Sri. Gurureddy but the said Defendant No.1 Sri. Yellareddy and
the sons of the above said Sri. Thippareddy have got divided all
the Joint and Ancestral property among them. The said partition
deed is also Registered before the office of the Sub- Registrar,
Anekal Taluk on 22/06/2000. Accordingly Some of the properties
has been allotted to the share of Sri.Yellareddy and some of the
properties has been allotted to the share to the sons of Sri.
Thippareddy.
4. The plaintiff further submits that the above said Sri. Munireddy
@ Annaiahreddy and Sri. Yellaredyy the Defendant No.1 are
brothers. After the death of Sri. Munireddy @ Annaiahreddy,
the partition was effected between the Defendant No.1 Sri.
Yellareddy and Smt. Gowramma who is the wife of Sri.
Munireddy @ Annaiahreddy. The said partition deed is also
registered before the office of Sub-Registrar, Anekal Taluk,
Anekal on 23/06/2000 vide document No.1459/00-01.

4|Page
 Accordingly the partition held between the Defendant No.1 and
Smt. Gowramma, the suit Schedule properties have been allotted
to the share of Sri.Yellareddy and out of the joint family fund,
Sri. Yellareddy purchased the property bearing Sy.No.206
measuring 1 acre 12 guntas of S.Medihalli Village, Sarjapura
Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District in fact Sri.yellaredyy
also obtained the court decree in respect of the above said
property. As such the above said property is included in the suit
schedule properties. When such being the Facts and
circumstances from the date of partition, plaintiff and defendants
are in joint peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule properties and even the plaintiff entitled for the absolute
share in the suit schedule properties.
5. The plaintiff further submits that when such being the facts and
circumstances, the defendant No.1 who being the senior member
of the Family and kartha of the joint family property was
managing the affairs of the joint family property. Recently the
Defendant hostile to the interest of Joint Family property by
misusing and mismanaging the joint family affairs. As such
plaintiff questioned the misuse and mismanagement of the
Defendant No.1 in respect of the schedule properties and even
demanded the Defendant No.1 to effect the partition and allot the
legitimate share to plaintiff but the Defendant No.1 refused to
effect partition and allot legitimate share to plaintiff. As such that
on 25/05/2007 plaintiff arranged the panchayath in the village
and demanded all the Defendants to effect partition and allot
plaintiff legitimate share, by that time the Defendants No.1,4 to 7
are proclaimed that they have already partitioned the suit
schedule properties on 23/04/2001 before the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Anekal Taluk, Anekal and they are openly expressed

5|Page
 that they are going to alienate the suit schedule properties in
favour of some third parties. Immediately plaintiff got obtained
the RTC extracts from the revenue authorities and also obtained
the certified copy of the Partition Deed dated:23/04/2001. In fact
on the basis of the alleged partition dated 23/04/2001, the
defendants No.3 to 7 have obtained the revenue documents in
their favour and now the defendants are hurry in alienating the
suit schedule properties. Plaintiff is not the party to the above
partition deed dated:23/04/2001 and no share is allotted to
plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. The said partition is
obtained by the Defendants is behind and back of plaintiff. As
such the said partition deed is not binding on plaintiff share.As a
coparcener even the plaintiff is entitled for the joint family
property but till today, it is solely enjoyed by Defendants and
there is no partition existed between the plaintiff and Defendants
as it is a join family property.

6. The Plaintiff further submit that the Defendants, having learnt

that the Plaintiffs are contemplating to file the suit for partition,
taking advantage of revenue records standing in their name, is
making hectic efforts to alienate and/or to create third party rights
on the suit schedule properties.

7. The Plaintiffs further submit that, the cause of action arose when
their demand for partition by metes and bounds was finally
denied by the Defendants when the plaintiff demanded to effect
partition on 01.06.2020 and on subsequent dates.

6|Page
8. The Plaintiffs further submit that, the Plaintiffs have not filed any
other suit other than this suit on the same cause of action before
this Hon’ble Court of before any other court.

9. Separate Valuation slip is annexed to the plaint.

Wherefore, the Plaintiffs most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble

Court be pleased to grant Judgment and Decree in their favour
by;

a) Directing the Defendant No 1 and 8 to partition the suit

schedule properties by meets and bounds by allotting the
respective shares.

b) Granting any other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deem

fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

c) Awarding the cost of the suit in the interest of justice and

equity.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

ITEM NO 1

All that piece and parcel of the agriculture land bearing Sy. No.169/2,
measuring to an extent of 1 Acre 17 Guntas in V.P. Khatha No.245
situated at Peramachanahallie, Kaivara Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka, bounded on
East by : Ramachandrappa land
West by : Eralappa land
North by : NarayanaSwamy land
South by : Bangalore Chinthamani Road

7|Page
 ITEM NO 2

All that piece and parcel of the agriculture land bearing Sy. No.89/1,
measuring to an extent of 2 Acre 6 Guntas in V.P. Khatha No. 122,
situated at Konganahalli, Kaivara Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka, bounded on
East by : Ramanna land
West by :Krishnappa land
North by :Krishnappa land
South by : Temple
ITEM NO.3

All that piece and parcel of the agriculture land bearing Sy. No.83,
measuring to an extent of 2 Acre 13 Guntas in V.P Khatha No. 110
situated at Konganahalli, Kaivara Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka, bounded on
East by : Bangalore Chinthamani road
West by : Ramanna land
North by : Eralappa land
South by : Ramchandrappa land
ITEM NO.4

All that piece and parcel of the agriculture land bearing Sy. No.84,
measuring to an extent of 5 Guntas situated at Konganahalli, Kaivara
Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka,
bounded on
East by : Bangalore Chinthamani Road
West by : Rathnamma land
North by : Ramesh land
South by : Rathnamma land

8|Page
Advocate for Plaintiff Plaintiff

VERIFICATION

I,Smt.Sarojamma the Plaintiff in the above case, do hereby verify

that what is stated above is true and correct to the best of My
knowledge, belief and information.

Chinthamani, Plaintiff

Date:5-08-2020

9|Page
 IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTHAMANI

O.S. No /2020
Between:
Smt. Sarojamma …Plaintiff
And
Smt. Rathnamma and another … Defendants

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Sarojamma D/o Late Marappa, Aged about 60 years, R/a

Shillangare Village and post, uthur hobli, Kolar taluk and district,
Karnataka. do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows;

1. I state that I am the Plaintiff in the above case and I know the
facts and circumstances of the case, hence I am swearing this
affidavit.

2. I state that the averments stated in plaint in Para 1 to 12 are true

to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Identified by me,

Advocate Deponent

Place: Chinthamani
Date: 05-08-2020

10 | P a g e
 IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTHAMANI

O.S. No /2020
Between:
Smt. Sarojamma …Plaintiff
And
Smt. Rathnamma and another … Defendants

VALUATION SLIP

Sl. No. of The clause of The Method adopted Valuation

the Sec. 7(2) of the amount of to arrive at the arrived at
property in Karnataka Court revenue or valuation
plaint fees and suits other basis
schedule valuation Act for
1958 under valuation
which the
property comes.
1 2 3 4 5

Suit The Court fee is Not As the relief Total: Rs 200/-

schedule calculated under Applicabl sought in the is paid
property Sec 35(2) of e plaint is suit for
of the Karnataka Court partition and
plaint fee and suit separate
valuation Act, possession of the
1958 suit schedule
property to an
extent of 1/3 rd
share. The Court
fee is paid under
Sec 35(2) of
Karnataka Court
fee and suit
valuation Act.
Fixed Court fee of
Rs 200/- is paid

11 | P a g e
Place: Chinthamani
Date: 05-08-2020 Advocate for Plaintiffs

IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL

JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTHAMANI

O.S. No /2020
Between:
Smt. Sarojamma …Plaintiff
And
Smt. Rathnamma and another … Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 6 RULE 14

OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the address furnished in the

cause title is the correct and registered address of the Plaintiff and
Defendants. The said address is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. Hence, this application in the interest of justice
and equity.

Place: Chinthamani

Date: 05-08-2020 Advocate for Plaintiff

12 | P a g e
 IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTHAMANI

O.S. No /2020
Between:
Smt. Sarojamma …Plaintiff
And
Smt. Rathnamma and another … Defendants
LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Sl No Description Pages

Certified copy of the Partition deed dated

1
24.12.1966 bearing document No. 3854/1966-
67 and typed copy of the same

RTC copies from the year 1975-2020 pertaing

2
to above survey numbers

3 Copy of the Property Tax Paid Receipt

Place: Chinthamani

Date: 05-08-2020 Advocate for Plaintiff

13 | P a g e
 IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTHAMANI

O.S. No /2020

Between:

1. Smt. Sarojamma,
W/o Venkateshappa,
D/o Late Marappa,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at Shillangare Village & post,
Uthur Hobli, Kolar taluk,
Kolardistrict-563101 .…Plaintiff

And

2. Smt.Rathnamma,
w/o Late. Munivenkatareddy,
Aged about 52 years,
R/a Konganahalli Village,
Kaivara Hobli,
Chinthamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur-562125
2. Smt. Savithramma,
W/o Late Narayanappa,
D/o late Marappa,
Aged about 63 years,
R/a Mallur Village,
Shidlagatta Taluk,
Chikkaballapur-562102 ….Defendants

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2

OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

14 | P a g e
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, that the Plaintiff
most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant an
order of Ad Interim Order of Temporary Injunction against the
Defendants No.1 or her agents or anybody claiming under her from
alienating or creating any third party right over the suit schedule
properties until disposal of the above suit in the interest of justice and
equity.

SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

ITEM NO 1

All that piece and parcel of the agriculture land bearing Sy. No.169/2,
measuring to an extent of 1 Acre 17 Guntas in V.P. Khatha No.245
situated at Peramachanahallie, Kaivara Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka, bounded on
East by : Ramachandrappa land
West by : Eralappa land
North by : NarayanaSwamy land
South by : Bangalore Chinthamani Road

ITEM NO 2

All that piece and parcel of the agriculture land bearing Sy. No.89/1,
measuring to an extent of 2 Acre 6 Guntas in V.P. Khatha No. 122,
situated at Konganahalli, Kaivara Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka, bounded on
East by : Ramanna land
West by :Krishnappa land
North by :Krishnappa land
South by : Temple

ITEM NO.3

15 | P a g e
All that piece and parcel of the agriculture land bearing Sy. No.83,
measuring to an extent of 2 Acre 13 Guntas in V.P Khatha No. 110
situated at Konganahalli, Kaivara Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka, bounded on
East by : Bangalore Chinthamani road
West by : Ramanna land
North by : Eralappa land
South by : Ramchandrappa land
ITEM NO.4

All that piece and parcel of the agriculture land bearing Sy. No.84,
measuring to an extent of 5 Guntas situated at Konganahalli, Kaivara
Hobli, Chinthamani Taluk, Chikkaballapur District, Karnataka,
bounded on
East by : Bangalore Chinthamani Road
West by : Rathnamma land
North by : Ramesh land
South by : Rathnamma land

Place: Chinthamani

Date: Advocate for Plaintiff

16 | P a g e
 IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTHAMANI

O.S. No /2020

Between:
Smt.Sarojamma …Plaintiff
And
Smt.Rathnamma and others … Defendants
AFFIDAVIT

I, Sarojamma D/o Late Marappa, Aged about 60 years, R/a

Shillangare Village and post, uthur hobli, Kolar taluk and district,
Karnataka. do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows;

1. I am the Plaintiff in the above case and I know the facts of the
case. Hence I am swearing this affidavit.
2. I submit that the averments made in the plaint may be read as
part and parcel of this affidavit.
3. I submit that the Myself and Defendants constitute a Hindu Joint
Family governed by Mitakshara law of inheritance. I Submit that
Sri Late Baiahnna, the grandfather of myself and 2 nd Defendant,
whereas the said Baiahnna had three sons namely Erlappa,
Marappa and venkatarayappa with grandchildren formed Hindu
Joint Family and the family had owned and possessed both
movable and immovable properties and also my grandfather,
during his life time, had acquired the Agricultural lands bearing
Sy. No. 169 measuring 4 Acre 11 guntas, Sy No.169/2
measuring 1 Acre 17 guntas , Sy. No. 83 measuring 7 acres 7

17 | P a g e
 guntas , Sy. No. 88/2 measuring 3 acre 23 guntas and Sy. No. 84
measuring 13 guntas situated at Konganahalli village, kaivara
Hobli, chinthamani Taluk, chikkaballapur district, where as
Sy.No 169 at peramachanahalli Village, kaivara hobli,
chinthamani taluk , chikkaballapur district. Whereas the said
property is an ancestral property accordingly the properties were
partitioned through a registered Document in the Year 1966
December 24th vide document No.3854/66-77 at Chinthamani and
shared equally to the legal heirs(i.e Eralappa, venkatarayappa
and Marappa) by late Mr. Baiahanna. After acquiring the
properties the entire records stands in the Name of Son’s of Mr.
Baiahnna. Copy of Partition Deed, RTC extract standing in the
Name of Eralappa, Venkatappa Rayyappa and Marappa in respect
of the suit schedule property is produced in Document No. 1 and
2 respectively.
4. I submit that after transfer of property from my grandfather to my
Father we were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property but after the Demise Mr. Munivenkatareddy(i.e
my brother) on 13-06-1990 the property was entirely transferred
in the name of Rathnamma i.e Daughter in law of Mr. Marappa
and W/o Mr. Munivenkatareddy who is none other than a only
son of Mr. Marappa by way of inheritance.

5. I Submit that Out of the said properties Marappa ( my Father)

was entitled to a share of 1 Acre 17 guntas in Sy. No 169/2, 5
Guntas in Sy. No. 84, 2 Acre 12 Guntas in Sy. No. 83 , 2 Acre
21 guntas in Sy. No. 83 and 1 Acre 30 guntas in Sy. No. 88/2.
My father died intestate leaving behind the Defendants and the
Myself to succeed to his estate which includes the above Sy.
No’s situated at Konganahalli village and peramachanahalli
village is morefully described in the suit Schedule property. I

18 | P a g e
 further submit that after the demise of My father who died in the
year 1990. Thereafter the revenue records in respect of suit
Schedule property is mutated infavour of Smt. Rathnamma who
is the none other than daughter in Law of Marappa( my brother
wife). As a coparcener even Im entitled for the joint family
property but till today revenue records stands in the name Smt.
Rathnamma only. Till today, it is solely enjoyed by Defendant
No.1 and 2 and there is no partition existed between the me
and Defendants as it is a join family property.

6. I submit that, I plaintiff have approached the Defendants, more

particularly Defendant No.1, several times to Partition the suit
schedule properties by metes and bounds, but the Defendant No.1
initially postponed the partition for almost one decade on one or
the pretext and later, on 05.05.2020, when i pressed hard for
partition, declined to partition and give me a legitimate shares.
Hence, without option, I have filed this suit for partition.

7. I submit that the Defendant No.1, having learnt that I was in the
process of filing this suit, taking advantage of revenue records
standing in her name, is making hectic efforts to alienate and/or
to create third party rights on the suit schedule properties. If the
Defendant No.1 succeeds to do so, the same will lead to
multiplicity of proceedings and creates unnecessary hardship.

8. I submit that i have a prima facie case on merits and balance of

convenience lies in My favour.

9. I submit that if the interim order is not granted, I will be put to

irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated by any

19 | P a g e
 other means and on the other handed, if interim order is granted,
there is no hardship or injury will be caused to the defendants.

Wherefore, I pray this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the annexed

application in the interest of justice and equity.

Identified by me,

Advocate Deponent

Place: Chinthamani

Date: 05-08-2020

20 | P a g e
 Smt.Rathnamma,
w/o Late. Munivenkatareddy,
Aged about 52 years,
R/a Konganahalli Village,
Kaivara Hobli,
Chinthamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapur-562125

Smt. Savithramma,
W/o Late Narayanappa,
D/o late Marappa,
Aged about 63 years,
R/a Mallur Village,
Shidlagatta Taluk,
Chikkaballapur-562102

21 | P a g e