Karnataka High Court
Sri S E Sreenivasaiah vs Smt B Sarojamma on 6 February, 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB
RFA NO.185 of 2018
C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.185 OF 2018 (DEC)
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.333 OF 2018
IN RFA No.185/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.E.SREENIVASAIAH,
S/O LATE C.GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O NO.206/15, 4TH MAIN,
HEBBAL, GANGA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 032.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.SREEVATSA., SR.COUNSEL FOR
SMT. RASHMI JADHAV., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by S
NOORUNNISABEGUM 1. SMT. B.SAROJAMMA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF KARNTAKA W/O LATE SRI C.GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
(DEAD)BY HER LR,
RESPONDENT NO.2
2. SRI. G.S.VENKTESH KUMAR
S/O LATE SRI C. GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/O NO.275, 6TH CROSS,
NILAGIRI PAPANNA BLOCK,
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB
RFA NO.185 of 2018
C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018
HC-KAR
SRIRAMPURAM,
BANGALORE-560 021.
3. SRI. NATARAJ
S/O SRI THAMMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O NO.206/15, 4TH MAIN,
HEBBAL, GANGA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 032.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANGAD KAMATH & SLOKA B FOR R1(a)
R2-SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., 1908,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.11.2017
PASSED IN O.S.NO.6483/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XL
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND ETC.
IN RFA NO.333/2018
BETWEEN:
SRI. S.E.SREENIVASAIAH
S/O LATE C.GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O NO.206/15, 4TH MAIN,
HEBBAL, GANGA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560 032.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.SREEVATSA., SR.COUNSEL FOR
SMT. RASHMI JADHAV., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. B.SAROJAMMA
R/O NO.275, 5TH CROSS,
H.P. BLOCK, SRIRAMPURAM,
BENGLAURU-560 021.
SINCE DEAD BY HER LR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB
RFA NO.185 of 2018
C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018
HC-KAR
SRI. G.S.VENKATESH KUMAR
S/O LATE C.GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O NO.275, 6TH CROSS,
NILAGIRI PAPPANNA BLOCK,
SRIRAMPURAM,
BENGALURU-560 021.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU-560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANGAD KAMATH & SLOKA.B. FOR R1(a)
R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, 1908,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.11.2017
PASSED IN OS NO.7548/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XL ADDL.
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE DISMISSING
THE SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION.
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.11.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA
VITASTA GANJU PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
&
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB
RFA NO.185 of 2018
C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
.
(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)
1. These regular first appeals are filed by the appellant (defendant No.1 in O.S.No.6483/2008 and plaintiff in O.S.No.7548/2005) seeking to challenge the common Judgment and Decree dated 28.11.2017 passed by the XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Judgment"). By the Impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court has decreed O.S.No.6483/2008 and dismissed the appellant's suit bearing O.S.No.7548/2005. The learned Trial Court has further declared the Gift Deed dated 25.06.2004 as a void document and directed the appellant/plaintiff to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property within a period of three months.
2. This Court by its order dated 08.03.2018 directed an interim stay of the Impugned Judgment and Decree.An application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure -4- NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR Code, 1908, was filed by the appellant/plaintiff. By an order dated 20.06.2023, it was directed that application for additional evidence filed shall be taken at the time of final hearing. No objections are filed to the said application by the respondents/defendants.
3. Briefly the facts are that a suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.7548/2005 seeking permanent injunction to restrain respondent/defendant No.1, from alienating the suit property which is the property bearing BDA No.206, Municipal No.206-15, measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 40 feet, situated at Hebbal, Ganganagar Layout, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property'), and restraining respondent/defendant No.1 and other persons from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit property.
3.1. While respondent/defendant No.1 filed a suit, O.S.No.6483/2008 seeking a declaration that the respondent/defendant No.1 and his mother -5- NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR Smt. Sarojamma (plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.6483/2008) are the absolute owners of the suit property and that the registered Gift Deed dated 25.06.2004 is void. The relief of possession was also sought by respondent/defendant No.1 in his suit.
3.2. Both suits were clubbed and common evidence was led in O.S.No.7548/2005.
4. It was the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the suit property belonged to one Sri.C.Gangaiah, who is stated to be the father of the appellant/plaintiff. The respondent/defendant No.2 has also contended that he is the son of Sri. C.Gangaiah. The suit property was allotted to the father of the appellant/plaintiff vide lease-cum- saleagreement on 07.05.1975 and possession certificate on 06.08.1975. During his lifetime, Sri.C.Gangaiah executed a Gift Deed on 25.06.2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "Gift Deed") in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. After the death ofSri.C.Gangaiah, appellant/plaintiff got -6- NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR the khatha changed in his name and he is in possession of the property thereafter.
4.1. It is further stated by the appellant/plaintiff that the respondent/defendant(Smt. B.Sarojamma) claims to be the wife of Sri.C.Gangaiah and that the suit property belongs to her. However, the appellant/plaintiff has denied the relationship and ownership of respondent/defendant No.1(Smt. B.Sarojamma). The appellant/plaintiff sent a notice on 01.10.2005 to the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "BDA") requesting them not to transfer the property in the name of respondent/defendant No.1 since there was a threat to the rights of the appellant/plaintiff. Thus, the appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent/defendant No.1. 4.2. The respondent/defendant No.1 entered appearance in the suit and filed a Written Statement averring that the appellant/plaintiff is not the son of Sri.C.Gangaiah. However, it was not denied that Sri.C.Gangaiah was -7- NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR allotted the suit property by the BDA. The factum of Gift Deed was also denied by the respondent/defendant No.1. 4.3. As stated above, a separate suit was also filed by the respondents/defendants challenging the Gift Deed and contending that the Gift Deed is a fraudulent and forged document and not executed by Sri.C.Gangaiah.The respondent/defendantNo.1 averred that Sri.C.Gangaiah died on 11.09.2003 at Sanabagatta. The alleged Gift Deed stated to be executed is subsequent to death of Sri.C.Gangaiah. It was pleaded that respondent/defendant is the wife and the respondent/defendant No.1 is the son of Sri.C.Gangaiah.
4.4. In addition, it was pleaded by respondent/defendant No.1 that appellant/plaintiff is the son of one Sri.Eranna, the brother of Sri.C.Gangaiah. As the appellant/plaintiff was a relative to Sri.C.Gangaiah, he used to visit his house and thus, the appellant/plaintiff was aware of details of assets of Sri.C.Gangaiah.Sri.C.Gangaiah also kept original documents consisting of Sale Deed, Tax Paid -8- NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR Receipts, Possession Certificate etc., of the suit property in the house of his brother Sri.Eranna and the appellant/plaintiff used these documents to fabricate the Gift Deed.
4.5. It was further contended that the appellant/plaintiff fabricated the Death Certificate of Sri.C.Gangaiah showing the date of death as 04.08.2004 to forge the Gift Deed. A criminal case was also instituted against the appellant/plaintiff by the Tahsildar in this regard. It was further contended that the appellant/plaintiff had evicted a tenant and taken unlawful possession of the suit property. 4.6. The respondent/defendant (Smt.B.Sarojamma) further asserted that she being the wife of Sri.C.Gangaiah, along with her children, is entitled to the execution of the Sale Deed by the Bangalore Development Authority and that the appellant/plaintiff has no title or lawful possession over the suit property.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR 4.7. The Respondent No.2/defendant No.2 (BDA) filed its Written Statement wherein it has averred that the Gift Deed claiming to be executed by Sri.C.Gangaiah is a forged document. It further stated that at the time of applying for transfer of the schedule property, the appellant/plaintiff produced documents to prove that he is the son ofSri.C.Gangaiah.
5. The learned Trial Court after examining the pleadings between the parties framed two separate sets of Issues in the suits, which are below:
Issues in OS No.7548/2005
1. (a) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the son of late Sri.C.Gangaiah?
1. (b) Whether the 1st defendant proves that he is the son of late Sri.Eranna, brother of late Sri.C.Gangaiah?
2. Whether the 1st defendant proves that she is the wife of late Sri.C.Gangaiah?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant is making hectic efforts to obtain transfer deed in respect of the suit property in her favour?
4. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property?
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR
5. Whether the plaintiff proves interference caused by the 1st defendant to his possession and enjoyment?
6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction is maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration?
7. What decree or order?
Issues in OS No.6483/2008
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the owners of the suit property?
2. Whether the defendants prove that they are the owners of the suit property by virtue of Gift Deed dated 25.06.2004?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the alleged Gift Deed is a fabricated, forged and a void document?
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties?
5. Whether the Court fee paid is sufficient?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled is entitled to the declaration as sought for?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit property?
8. What Order or relief?
5.1. As stated above, common evidence was led by the parties in the two suits. The learned Trial Court, by the Impugned Judgment, dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff and suit of the respondent/defendant
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR No.1 was decreed with costs. The Gift Deed was declared as a void document and the appellant/plaintiff was directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to respondent/defendant No.1.
6. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the appellant/ plaintiff has filed two appeals, RFA No.333/2018 against the dismissal of his suit O.S.No.7548/2005 and R.F.A.No.185/2018 against the decree passed in O.S.No.6483/2008.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has contended that the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he is the son of the deceasedSri.C.Gangaiah and for the consequential relief of restraining the Commissioner, BDA from transferring the suit property in the name of respondent/defendant No.1.It iscontended that since Sri.C.Gangaiah was unmarried, the appellant/plaintiff was his foster son and Sri.C.Gangaiah had executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of appellant/plaintiff and that he had been put in
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR possession of the suit property since then. However, respondent/defendant (Smt. B.Sarojamma) who claimed to be the wife of the deceased Sri.C.Gangaiah, has claimed the suit property contending that she is entitled to the same as the wife of the said Sri.C.Gangaiah. 7.1. In addition, learned counsel for appellant/plaintiff submitted that Sri.C.Gangaiah died on 04.08.2004 at Sanabagatta Village and a false death certificate was created by respondent/defendant No.1 of Sri.C.Gangaiah as if he had died on 11.09.2003 in Bangalore. 7.2. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff further contended that although the appellant/plaintiff was foster son of Sri.C.Gangaiah, he was treated as his natural son being the son of his younger brother Sri.Eranna. It was stated that respondent/defendant No.1 did not attend to the last rites and rituals of Sri.C.Gangaiah and was not entitled to inherit rights to the property. It was also averred that the respondent/defendant was not the legally wedded wife of the said Sri.C.Gangaiah.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No.1 has reiterated the contentions as set out in O.S.No.6483/2008. It is contended that Sri.C.Gangaiah used to live in Sanabagatta, Tumkur District. He died on 11.09.2003 and that Smt. B.Sarojammais the lawful wife of Sri.C.Gangaiah, and Sri.G.S.Venkatesh Kumar is the only son of Sri.C.Gangaiah and they are the only persons entitled to the property of Sri.C.Gangaiah to the exclusion of appellant/plaintiff.
8.1. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant No.1 has further contended that since the appellant/plaintiff was the son of the brother of Sri.C.Gangaiah, he would visit his house very often and because of his close relationship, would also stay in the house. It was further stated that as he had a detailed knowledge of all assets of Sri.C.Gangaiah, he took the documents from the house of Sri.C.Gangaiah, and manipulated and fabricated the Gift Deed. It was further contended that the Gift Deed is inadequately stamped and is thus void. In addition, it was
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR stated by the appellant/plaintiff that the Gift Deed was executed on 25.06.2004, which is impossible since by that time, Sri.C.Gangaiah had already passed away. Lastly, it was contended that the revenue record/khata was mutated by virtue of the Gift Deed, and the tenant who was staying in the suit property was evicted without the knowledge or consent of the true owners of the property, Smt. B.Sarojamma and Sri.G.S.Venkatesh Kumar.
9. Since the evidence was led before the learned Trial Court in O.S.No.7548/2005, the appellant/Sri S.E. Sreenivasaiah was treated as the plaintiff while respondent/Smt. B.Sarojamma as the first defendant.Both parties produced various documents in support of their contentions. The appellant/plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he also examined his father, Sri.Eranna s/o late Sri. Kariyappa, as well as Sri. Mariswamy Gowda s/o late Sri. Channaiah, as P.W.2 and P.W.3respectively, in support of his contentions. While the defendant No.2/ Sri.G.S.Venkatesh Kumar in O.S.No.7548/2005 was
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR examined as D.W.1 in support of the case of respondent/defendant No.1.
10. The learned Trial Court after examining the record held that the adoption of appellant/plaintiff could not be proved because there was no adoption deed, however, the wedding card and photos proved the wedding of Smt. B.Sarojamma with Sri.C.Gangaiah. In addition, the learned Trial Court laid emphasis on the factum of death of Sri.C.Gangaiah, and gave a finding based on the death certificate that the death of Sri.C.Gangaiah took place on 11.09.2003, and hence, the Gift Deed dated 25.06.2004 could not be valid. The learned Trial Court premised it's finding on the fact that the original Gift Deed was also not produced.
11. In addition, on the other issues framed such as non- joinder, deficiency of court fees, the learned Trial Court found that the suit was not barred for non-joinder/ mis-joinder of necessary parties and that the court fees paid was adequate in terms of the Karnataka Court-fee
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. A finding was also given against the appellant/plaintiff that a suit for permanent injunction was not maintainable without declaration of title and since the suit filed by appellant/plaintiff did not seek a declaration, the suit was hit by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
12. The following facts are undisputed. Sri.C.Gangaiah was an employee in Bharat Electronics (Private) Ltd. as Grade 'B' Clerk. He was residing at Sanabagatta till 1985, and thereafter,he shifted to Bangalore. The appellant/plaintiff was not the natural born son of Sri. C.Gangaiah, but was the son of his younger brother Sri.Eranna. The S.S.L.C. Marks Card (Ex.D5) of the appellant/plaintiff gives the date of birth as 01.02.1970 and his father's name as Sri.Eranna. 12.1 Late Sri. C.Gangaiah was allotted a site bearing No.206 (re-numbered as 206/15) by the City Improvement Trust Board, which is presently called as the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The BDA had executed a
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR Lease-cum-Sale Agreement of the said site in favour of Sri. C.Gangaiah on 07.05.1975 and Sri. C.Gangaiah became the absolute owner with all rights, title and interest over the said property. A possession certificate was issued in his name on 06.08.1975. The dispute is in respect of the said property. The appellant/plaintiff has claimed rights over the property on the basis of the Gift Deed dated 25.06.2004, whereas, the respondents/defendants have claimed a right over the said property (suit property) on the basis of inheritance.
13. The issue that arises for determination in these appeals is whether the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court that the Gift Deed dated 25.06.2004 was a forged and void document, and the respondents/defendants are entitled for possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the basis of inheritance, are in accordance with the evidence produced or require interference?
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR
14. One of the principal contentions that the Impugned Judgment premises itself is on the factum of the date of death of Sri.C.Gangaiah. On an enquiry of death of Sri.C.Gangaiah, the Tahsildar gave a finding that the death occurred on 11.09.2003 in Sanabagatta, and not on 04.08.2004. Thus, the death certificate previously issued was cancelled.
15. The BDA has in its Written Statement averred that on examination of the Gift Deed, the photographs of Sri.C.Gangaiah in the Gift Deed and the earlier Sale Deed of 03.07.1975 do not tally. On an enquiry conducted by the Superintendent of Police, it was found that the transfer of the property occurred after the death of Sri.C.Gangaiah and that the appellant/plaintiff submitted false documents to BDA for its transfer. The relevant paragraphs of the Written Statement of Respondent No.2/BDA in this behalf are reproduced below:-
"3. It is false to state that Sri.C.Gangaiah had executed the gift deed on 25.06.2004 on behalf of the plaintiff. The said gift deed is a forged document executed by someone else claiming to be Sri.C.Gangaiah. The
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR averments alleged in the gift deed that the plaintiff is the son of Sri.C.Gangaiah is denied as false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
4. It is submitted that after the death of Sri.C.Gangaiah in the year 2004 the plaintiff made a representation to the 2nd defendant seeking transfer of the scheduled site in his favour on the basis of the gift deed alleged to have been executed in his favour. All the time of applying for the transfer of the suit scheduled site the plaintiff has produced certain documents to prove that he is son of Sri.C.Gangaiah. Subsequently the 1st defendant, wife of late Sri.C.Gangaiah made a representation to the 2nd defendant seeking transfer of the suite scheduled suit in her favour.The 1st defendant at the time of applying for the transfer of the said site to her name has also produced certain documents to prove that she is the wife of late Sri.C.Gangaiah.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
6. It is submitted that after examining the documents submitted by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, the superintendent of the 2nd defendant has come to a conclusion that the 1st defendant is the wife of Sri.C.Gangaiah.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
8. It is submitted that on examining the gift deed alleged to have been done by Sri. C.Gangaiah in favour of the plaintiff,the Superintendent of the 2nd defendant was also of the view that the thumb impression of Sri.C.Gangaiah in the gift deed and thumb impression in the sale deed dated 03.07.1975 does not tally. The photograph of Sri.C.Gangaiah in the gift deed and the photograph produced by the 1st defendant does not tally. Hence the superintendent of police was of the view that the plaintiff has got the gift deed registered after the death of Sri.C.Gangaiah by taking some third person to the sub-registrar office.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB
RFA NO.185 of 2018
C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018
HC-KAR
xxxx xxxx xxxx
11. It is submitted that the superintendent of police of the 2nd defendant also examined the documents submitted by the 1st defendant and is finally of the view that it is the pre-planned programmed by the plaintiff to grab the suit schedule property in his favour.
12. It is submitted that on the basis of the enquiryconducted by the superintendent of police the 2nd defendant can proceed in transferring the suit schedule site in favour of the 1st defendant."
[Emphasis Supplied]
16. Clearly, if the date of death of Sri.C.Gangaiah was not 04.08.2004 as per the earlier death certificate issued, and Sri.C.Gangaiah died on 11.09.2003, the question of Gift Deed being in existence would not arise. Once the factum of death on 11.09.2003 is proved, the issue would become moot.
17. Both appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant No.1 produced documents and evidence in support of their respective contentions on two different dates of death. The details surrounding the death become clear from evidence produced. The appellant/plaintiff examined himself as a witness (P.W.1) along with his father Sri.Eranna (PW.2) and a temple poojary (PW.3). These persons confirmed
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR that Sri.C.Gangaiah died on 04.08.2004 and was cremated at Sanabagatta. On the other hand, Sri.G.S.Venkatesh Kumar (D.W.1) contended that Sri C.Gangaiah died on 11.09.2003 at Sanabagatta. However, he was not present there at the time of the death. Both parties adduced documents, Ex.P1 to Ex.P60 by the appellant/plaintiff and Ex.D1 to Ex.D18 by the respondents/defendants.
18. As stated above, the principal issue that would arise is as to whether the Gift Deed dated 25.06.2004 (Ex.P6) was a forged and fabricated document.The Impugned Judgment premises itself on the fact that death certificate dated 04.08.2004 is fabricated, and thus, the Gift Deed dated 25.06.2004 could not have been executed.
19. The case of the appellant/plaintiff that was pleaded before the learned Trial Court is that Sri. C.Gangaiah died on 04.08.2004 at Bengaluru and the funeral and last rituals were performed at Sanabagatta Village. In support of this stand, the appellant/plaintiff produced the death certificate(s) of Sri. C.Gangaiah issued by the Bengaluru
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR Mahanagara Palike, [Ex.P3] and [Ex.P20], the Certificate issued by Dr. Vanaja Shivakumar [Ex.P21] and a Certificate issued by the Village Accountant about the funeral of Sri C.Gangaiah [Ex.P22]. In addition, several other documents were produced bythe appellant/plaintiff. These include a Report dated21.03.2011 of the Tahsildar [Ex.P34], a statement of P.W.2 (date not available in translated copy) given before the Tahsildar [Ex.P35], the notices dated 07.09.2010 issued by the Tahsildar to the son of deceased defendant and the plaintiff [Ex.P36, Ex.P37, Ex.P40 and Ex.P42], the statement of the villager [Ex.P45], and the statement of the deceased defendant [Ex.P51] before the Tahsildar. The other death certificate of Sri C.Gangaiah was marked as Ex.P.54 showing the date of death as 11.09.2003 and the endorsement issued by the Public Information Officer was marked as Ex.P.55. 19.1. The respondents/defendants on the other hand produced the copy of the letter dated 13.10.2006 addressed to the Tahsildar by the BBMP [Ex.D3], the copy
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR of the order passed by the Joint Director, Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike dated 13.10.2006 [Ex.D4] and the death certificate of Sri C. Gangaiah issued by the Tahsildar [Ex.D14].
20. Undisputibly, PW-2 is the father of the appellant/plaintiff. In his examination-in-chief, he had stated that Sri C.Gangaiah died on 04.08.2004. However, in the cross-examination, he had stated that he was made nominee by Sri C. Gangaiah in respect of deposits in Canara Bank and he withdrew the said amount in 2003. Clearly, the amounts could only have been withdrawn after the death of Sri C.Gangaiah and not before. The relevant extract is as below:
Deposition of PW -2 in Examination-in-Chief:
Because our elder brother Sri. C. Gangayya was unmarried and did not marry, when he asked us, we gladly gave the plaintiff S. E. Srinivasaiah (plaintiff) for adoption. Therefore, our son S. E. Srinivasaiah (plaintiff) has only biological parents, and in real life, Sri. C. Gangayya, our elder brother, is the true father of S. E. Srinivasaiah (plaintiff) in every way. Since S. E. Srinivasaiah (plaintiff) was aware, Sri. C. Gangayya has been his father. Our elder brother Sri. C. Gangayya passed away on 04-08-2004. We performed his funeral rites and other rituals in our village
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR according to Hindu customs under the leadership of our son S. E. Srinivasaiah (plaintiff). Therefore, we obtained the death confirmation certificate from our village, which has been submitted to the Honorable Court.
Deposition of PW -2 in Cross-Examination:
PW. 1 is my son. I cannot identify signature of PW.1. One Gangaiah is my elder brother. I cannot identify signature of my elder brother Gangaiah. I heard that my said brother used to sign in Kannada as well as English. It is true to suggest that I was nominee with respect to deposit in Canara Bank made by Gangaiah.I withdrawn said FD amount. I may be withdrawn said FD amount in 2003.
[Emphasis Supplied] 20.1. In addition, an examination of the statement given by P.W.2 to the Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk, shows that Sri Eranna has stated that Sri.C.Gangaiah was unmarried due to his poor health and was being looked after by him and appellant/plaintiff, Sri. S.E.Sreenivasaiah. This document however contains an admission by Sri.Eranna, father of Sri.S.E.Sreenivasaiah, that Sri. C.Gangaiah passed away on 11.09.2003 in Sanabagatta village, and funeral and other rites were conducted by Sri.Eranna and Sri. S.E.Sreenivasaiah. This would also tally with the death certificate dated 11.09.2003 issued by the Registrar of
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR Births and Deaths which was produced by the appellant/plaintiff Sri S.E.Sreenivasaiah and he gave the date of death Sri.C.Gangaiah as 11.09.2003 which is exhibited at Ex.P54. It is apposite to set out the relevant extract of this statement below:
"Kunigal Taluk Tahsildar (in person) statement written by me, M.C. Yada Eeranna Bin Late Kariappa of Sanabaghatta village, Amruthur Hobli, is as follows:
On Tuesday, 30-11-2010,I was present to investigate the death of Sri C. Gangayya Bin Kariappa of Sanabaghatta village. My elder brother, C. Gangayya, was employed at B.E.L. Factory in Bangalore and resided at our home. Due to his poor health, he was unmarried. His well-being was looked after by me and my son Srinivasayya (the adopted son of C. Gangayya). He passed away on 11-09-2003 in Sanabaghatta village, and his funeral and other rites were conducted by me and his adopted son S.I. Srinivasayya. I do not know who Smt. Sarojamma and Venkatesh Kumar are. Regarding my brother's death, we signed a statement on 27-09-2009 to the Sheshadripuram Police in Bangalore out of fear without reading it. I have read and signed this statement after understanding it."
[Emphasis Supplied]
21. Insofar as concerns the death certificate dated 04.08.2004 [Ex-P3] produced by the appellant/plaintiff, an enquiry was conducted by the Bangalore Municipal Corporation based on a communication issued by the Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk. The communication dated
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR 13.10.2006 is exhibited as Ex.D3 and sets out that the date of death of Sri. C.Gangaiah has been fraudulently registered as 04.08.2004 in the office of the Health and Medical Officer, Rajajinagar, Bangalore [Reg.No.479], and this registration has to be cancelled. It further sets out that the person responsible for this registration is the appellant/plaintiff-Sri. S.E.Sreenivasaiah and that a police complaint should be registered against him. The relevant extract is below:
"Bangalore Municipal Corporation No.JDS/Staff/PR/120/06 Office of the Commissioner, Numeric Division 10th Floor, PU Building MG Road, Bangalore, Date: 13/10/06.
To, Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District, Respected Sir, Subject: Regarding the fraudulent registration of the death date of late shri C. Gangayya Bin Kariappa, Kunigal Taluk, Sanabhaghatta village, as 04/08/04.
Reference: 1) Your letter No.R.N.K.M.Y. Siddupadi:
01/05/06 dated: 27/06/05.
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR
2) No.A.S.A.N. 38/J.M.N. 17377/2004 dated:
25.07.05.
Regarding the subject, the death date of late Shri C.Gangayya Bin Kariappa, Kunigal Taluk, Sanabhaghatta Village, has been fraudulently registered as 04/08/04 in the office of the Health Medical Officer, Rajajinagar, Bangalore (Registration No. 479).This registration has been ordered to be canceled.
The person responsible for this fraudulent registration, Mr. S.E. Srinivasaiah Bin Eranna, former address No.7, 15th Main Road, J.C. Nagar, Kurubarahalli, Bangalore, is to be traced through the police department and a criminal case is to be filed against him for prosecution and punishment."
Yours faithfully, Signature/-
Joint Director (in-charge) Bangalore Municipal Corporation Copy to: Chief Birth and Death Registration Officers and Director, 7th Floor, Visvesvaraya Tower, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore-560001.
Signature/-
Tahsildar Kunigal Taluk"
[Emphasis supplied]
22. Based on this communication, the death certificate dated 04.08.2004 of Sri C.Gangaiah was cancelled by the Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk. The cancellation letter exhibited as Ex.D4, also sets out that the copy of the cause of death report submitted is false. Hence, it directs the cancellation
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR of the death certificate dated 04.08.2004. The relevant extract is set out below.
"The Health Medical Officer, Rajajinagar, has verified and reported that the death date of late Shri C. Gangayya as 04.08.2004 is false and that Mr. S.E. Srinivasaiah, No. 7, 15th Main Road, J.C. Nagar, Kurubarahalli, does not reside at the given address and has recently vacated the house.Furthermore, Mrs.Sunandamma, President of Huliyur Durga Gram Panchayat, has confirmed that she participated in the funeral on 04.08.2004, which is false as there is no one by that name. Additionally, the copy of the death cause report submitted is also false as the reporting doctor does not exist.
Based on the above, the Tahsildar, Kunigal, has verified the report from the Health Medical Officer, Rajajinagar, and issued an order under Section 25 of the Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969.
ORDER Considering that the registration of the death of Shri C. Gangayya Bin Kariappa on 04.08.2004 under Death Registration No. 479 at the office of the Health Medical Officer, Rajajinagar, was fraudulently done, it is hereby canceled with immediate effect.
Bangalore Municipal Corporation Chief Birth and Death Registration Officers and Director, 7th Floor, Visvesvaraya Tower, Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore- 560001."
[Emphasis Supplied]
23. The appellant/plaintiff has also in fact produced evidence in support of the date of death being in 2003.Ex.P51 is the statement given by the respondent/defendant Smt.B.Sarojamma before the Tahasildar, Bangalore Development Authority, during the
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR enquiry conducted by the Special Tahasildar of BDA. The respondent/defendant Smt.B.Sarojamma has clarifiedabout her marriage and confirmed that she has two sons, Sri. G.S.Venkatesh Kumar and Sri. Bhavani Shankar. She submits that SriBhavani Shankar is not her biological son but he was given to her as a child, and she had raised him as her own son. She states that she married Sri C.Gangaiah in 1956. He was from Sanabagatta Village, Kunigal Taluk and was working in Bengaluru before marriage. After marriage, they lived in Sriramapura's slum area. In 1969-70, they moved to Vyalikaval and Sri.C.Gangaiah continued to go to work from there. She stated that she livedwith Sri.C.Gangaiah at both the places i.e., Sriramapura and Vyalikaval. She further stated that Site No.206 was allotted by the BDA in Gangenahalli, Hebbal. During the lifetime of Sri. C. Gangaiah, they never lived in the house constructed on the aforesaid site, but were living in Sriramapura slum area. However, Sri.
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR C.Gangaiah used to live in Gangenahalli rather than in Sriramapura, and she used to visit him occasionally. 23.1. Smt. B Sarojamma also sets out in the statement that Sri. C.Gangaiah was suffering from ill-health and preferred to live in Gangenahalli where she would visit him occasionally. She further admitted that Sri. S.E. Sreenivasaiah would come and stay with him, and that Sri.C.Gangaiah would stay in his brother's house Sanabagatta. The relevant extract is reproduced below:
"I have been residing at the above address for many years. I have two sons: 1.G.S.Venkatesh Kumar, 2.Bhavani Shankar. We all live together at the above house. Though Bhavani Shankar is not my biological son, he was given to me as a child and I have raised him as my own sonand have mentioned him as my son in all records.
I married my husband C.Gangaiah in 1956. He was from Sanabaghatta village, Kunigal Taluk, and was working in Bangalore before our marriage. After our marriage, we lived in Srirampura's slum area. In 1969-70, we moved to vyalikaval and he continued to go to work from there. I lived in both Srirampura and Vyalikaval.
In 1973, we applied for a site from BDA in Vyalikaval, and accordingly, we were allotted site number 206 in Gangenahalli, Hebbal. During this time, as we were not staying at home and were living in Srirampura's slum area, my husband used to come home occasionally and inform us.Since he was living in Vyalikaval and visiting home once a week, my name was not included in the records given to BDA.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR As proof that Gangayya is my husband, I have provided information from the voter I.D card of our current address and educational certificates of our children, which confirm that Gangaiah is their father. Additionally I have provided the wedding invitation of my son Venkatesh Kumar, which confirms that Gangayya is my husband and I am the mother.
My husband Gangayya, who was suffering from ill health, preferred to live in Gangenahalli rather than with us in Sriramapura. I used to visit him occasionally. During that time, I was also suffering from ill health and was admitted to the hospital. To take care of him, S.E. Srinivas, the son of Gangayya's brother Eeranna, came and stayed with him. Later, Gangayya stayed in his brother's house in Sanabaghatta as he wished.
On 11-09-03, he passed away in Sanabaghatta. We were informed about his death after the funeral rites were performed. When we went to inquire, it was evening, and they said it was not possible to provide proper information."
[Emphasis Supplied] 23.2.In addition, in the statement, it was further stated by Smt. B.Sarojamma that when she searched for records after the death of Sri. C.Gangaiah with respect to suit schedule property [property bearing BDA 206, Municipal No.206-15], it was found that the same was in the name of Sri.S.E.Sreenivasaiah and that it was pursuant to a registered Gift Deed that the transfer of records had been done.
"Later, I searched for the records of site number 206 allotted in my husband's name and found them. Upon inquiry at the municipal corporation, it was found that the account was in the
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR name of S.E. Srinivas. Upon further investigation, it was found that Srinivas had registered a gift deed claiming to be Gangayya's son. I have submitted an application to BDA for the transfer of records with the details of the fraud.
[Emphasis Supplied] 23.3. She further admitted that Sri S.E.Sreenivasaiah also created a record claiming to be son of Sri.C.Gangaiah and included his name in the ration card and other documents.
The statement also sets out that a letter from Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk dated 27.06.2005 states that Sri. C.Gangaiah passed away on 11.09.2003 which was confirmed through the village residents and mahazar that was conducted by the Tahasildar. The relevant extract set out below:
"My husband was born in Sanabaghatta village, Kunigal Taluk and had a brother named Eeranna. Eeranna had two sons 1. S.E.Srinivas, 2.S.E....."
"Among them, the eldest son S.E. Srinivas is the son of Eeranna. He created records claiming to be the son of Gangayya and included his name in the ration card and other documents. He passed away on 11-9-2003. On 4-8-2004, it was found that Gangayya had passed away and that a gift deed was registered on 25-06-2004. The Tahsildar of Kunigal Taluk provided a death certificate and voter list of Eeranna's family, which clarified the details in the gift deed.
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR A letter from the Tahsildar of Kunigal Taluk dated 27-06-2005 states that Gangayya passed away on 11- 9-2003, confirmed through the village residents' statements and conducted mahazar. Therefore, the death certificate issued in Bangalore on 9-8- 2004 should be canceled, and a letter from the Birth and Death Registration Department is presented."
[Emphasis Supplied]
24. Inaddition, the respondents/defendants have also produced Ex.D12 and Ex.D13, which are voter ID cards issued in the names of Smt.B.Sarojamma and Sri.G.S.Venkatesh Kumar respectively, showing husband/ father's name as Sri. C.Gangaiah.
25. Clearly, thus, there is an overwhelming evidence that Sri.C.Gangaiah did not die on 04.08.2004 but on 11.09.2003. Thus, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, the factum of death of Sri. C.Gangaiah was established as on 11.09.2003 and not 04.08.2004. Ergo, it leads to the conclusion that the Gift Deed dated 25.06.2004 could not have been executed by Sri. C.Gangaiah at all. Since appellant/plaintiff has claimed rights on the basis of a Gift Deed which has conclusively
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR been proven to be a fabricated document, the appellant/plaintiff cannot claim any right through the Gift Deed. The learned Trial Court thus had rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff.
26. As stated above, the appellant/plaintiff has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, 1908 to adduce further evidence. This Court has examined the application. It is stated in the application that these documents have a bearing on the merits of the case and that the documents could not be produced earlier as they were seized by the police in C.C.No.3778/2009. The appellant/plaintiff has requested that these documents be produced as additional evidence:
"1. Letter dated 01.06.2015 written by Assistant Director of Food and Civil Supplies to Appellant.
2. Letter dated 14.03.2022 written by Assistant Director of Food and Civil Supplies to Appellant.
3. Certified copy of Ration card of Sarojamma filed in C.C.No.3778/2009.
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR
4. Certified copy of evidence of G.S.Venkatesh Kumar in C.C.No.3778/2009.
5. Certified copy of judgment dated 24.02.2021 in C.C.No.3778/2009.
6. The Death Certificate issued by Village Accountant filed in C.C.No. 3778/2009 and referred in the judgment.
7. The Voter List filed in C.C.No.3778/2009.
8. Certified copy of the electoral card dated 19.09.1992 in the interests of justice and equity."
26.1. By order dated 20.06.2023, it was directed that this application shall be decided at the time of final hearing in the matter. Although this Application was not argued by the appellant/plaintiff, this Court has examined the documents filed. A perusal of these documents show that the documents at Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 8 do not relate to C.C.No.3778/2009. However, document Nos.3 to 7 form part of the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.3778/2009 which were initiated against the appellant/plaintiff. 26.2. The death certificate at document No.6 shows the date of death of Sri. C.Gangaiah as 11.09.2003. The only reason stated in the application filed as to why the
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR appellant/plaintiff has failed to produce these documents previously, is that they were part of the documents in the criminal proceedings. No other reason is forthcoming in the application for production of additional documents.
27. The Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and another1has held that the power under Order XLI Rule 27 of the CPC is an exception and not a rule, and additional evidence cannot be permitted to fill up lacunae or to improve a party's case. It has been categorically held that where the evidence on record is sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, no additional evidence can be allowed. It is apposite to set out relevant extract below:
"36.The general principle is that the appellate court should not travel outside the record of the lower court and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, as an exception, Order 41 Rule 27 CPC enables the appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances. The appellate court may permit additional evidence only and only if the conditions laid down in this Rule are found to exist. The parties are not entitled, as of right, to the admission of such evidence. Thus, the provision does not apply, when on the basis of the 1 (2012) 8 SCC 148
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR evidence on record, the appellate court can pronounce a satisfactory judgment. The matter is entirely within the discretion of the court and is to be used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a judicial discretion circumscribed by the limitation specified in the Rule itself. (Vide K.Venkataramiahv.A.Seetharama Reddy2, Municipal Corporation. Of Greater Bombay v. Lala Pancham3, Soonda Ramv. Rameshwarlal4 and Syed Abdul Khader v.Rami Reddy5.
xxx xxx xxxx
49. An application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is to be considered at the time of hearing of appeal on merits soas to find out whether the documents and/or the evidence sought to be adduced have any relevance/bearing on the issues involved. The admissibility of additional evidence does not depend upon the relevancy to the issue on hand, or on the fact, whether the applicant had an opportunity for adducing such evidence at an earlier stage or not, but it depends upon whether or not the appellate court requires the evidence sought to be adduced to enable it to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause. The true test, therefore is, whether the appellate court is able to pronounce judgment on the materials before it without taking into consideration the additional evidence sought to be adduced. Such occasion would arise only if on examining the evidence as it stands the court comes to the conclusion that some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent to the court. (Vide Arjan Singh v. Kartar Singh6 and Natha Singh v. Financial Commr., Taxation7.)"
[Emphasis Supplied] 2 AIR 1963 SC 1526 3 AIR 1965 SC 1008 4 (1975) 3 SCC 698 5 (1979) 2 SCC 601 61951 SCC 178 7(1976) 3 SCC 28
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR
28. In the present case, the appellant/plaintiff had already produced more than 60 documents which have been discussed and relied upon in the Impugned Judgment. This Court has also examined the evidence produced by both parties. The additional evidence would only be requisite if evidence before this Court is not sufficient, which it is. In addition,the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has also not insisted on taking these documents on record while arguing the matter finally.
29. It is settled law that civil proceedings are required to be decided on the preponderance of probability, which is unlike criminal proceedings that require higher burden of prooffor a conviction. Thus, reliance thereon could not change the nature of the outcome in the civil proceedings. In addition and as stated above, there is already sufficient material on record which has been examined by this Court.
30. In view of the aforegoing discussions, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the ImpugnedCommon
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7170-DB RFA NO.185 of 2018 C/W RFA NO. 333 OF 2018 HC-KAR Judgment and Decree in two suits.The appeals are accordingly dismissed.The pending application is also dismissed.
31. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
YN
List No.: 1 Sl No.:2
- 40 -