AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J
The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S. No. 11204/1998 had filed the suit for following reliefs:
CLAIM:
Suit filed on 05.10.1998, prays for Judgment and decree against the defendants, a) declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share in all the properties described in the schedule and any other properties left by Smt. T.K. Nagambal. b) Directing the Schedule and other properties (if any) to be partitioned by metes and bounds and place the plaintiffs in separate possession of the 1/5th share and granting plaintiffs the cost of the suit and other relief.
Schedule - A
All that part and parcel of property bearing No. J6, 5th main, Jayamahal, Bangalore and the market value of the said property is about Rs. 1.50,000/
Schedule - B
Money under fixed deposits in Syndicate Bank, Jayamahal Branch, Bangalore.
Money under fixed deposits in State Bank of Mysore, Jayamahal Branch, Bangalore.
Money under fixed deposit in Canara Bank. Nandidurg Road, Bangalore.
Schedule - C
Investments in several companies under Share Certificates available with the 1st Defendant.
Schedule - D
Other moveable under the custody of 1st defendant such as gold jewels, colour T.V. set. shares and other moveables, valued more than Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Schedule - E
Any other property which escaped notice.
The plaintiffs had contended that late T.K. Nagambal was a former Principal of Maharani''s Arts College, Bangalore. T.K. Nagambal was a spinster and she died on 27.12.1996. leaving behind plaint ''A'' to ''E'' schedule properties. She left behind her sisters and brothers namely Sharada. T. Jagadambal. Thangavelu, T.K. Neelambal and T.K. Bhagyavathi. Smt. Sharada. one of the sisters of T.K. Nagambal died leaving behind plaintiffs I to V as her legal representatives. Defendants I & IV are the sisters of deceased T.K. Nagambal. Defendants II, II(a) to II(g) are the widow and children of T.K. Thangavelu, who was the brother of late T.K. Nagambal. Defendants III & III(a) are the legal representatives of T.K. Neelambal, one of the sisters of late T.K. Nagambal. The plaintiffs have contended that plaintiffs and defendants succeeded to the estate of late T.K. Nagambal as her legal representatives and plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share in the estate of T.K. Nagambal. The plaintiffs submitted that late T.K. Nagambal was the absolute owner of property No. 16, 15th Main, Jayamahal, Bangalore-46, described in plaint A schedule. Late T.K. Nagambal had kept money in fixed deposits in Syndicate Bank, Jayamahal Branch, Bangalore, State Bank of Mysore, Jayamahal Branch, Bangalore and Canara Bank. Nandidurg Road, Bangalore, as described in plaint B'' schedule. Late T.K. Nagambal had invested in several companies under share certificates, described in plaint C schedule, which are available with I-defendant. In plaint ''D'' schedule, there is vague reference to the movables held by late T.K. Nagambal, neither description of movables nor their value is forthcoming.
Defendants I & II contested the suit and denied that late T.K. Nagambal died intestate. They had contended that late T.K. Nagambal had executed a will in favour of I-defendant. Therefore, they are entitled to succeed to the properties in terms of the will left by late T.K. Nagambal.
The other defendants filed written statement conceding the plaint averments and prayed for their respective shares.
The trial Court framed the following issues:
Whether plaintiffs prove that they are related to Smt. T.K. Nagambal as mentioned in plaint para 4 and 5?
Whether plaintiffs prove that Smt. T.K. Nagambal died leaving behind suit schedule properties?
Whether defendant No. 1 proves that deceased Smt. T.K. Nagambal has bequeathed Schedule A property, her savings and deposits in her favour?
Whether plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4 are entitled to claim any share? If so, what is the extent of their share and in what properties?
What decree or order?
During trial, PW1 - IV plaintiff had filed an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. It appears, IV-plaintiff was not subjected to cross-examination. The plaintiffs did not bother to produce any documents relating to the properties described in plaint ''A'' schedule and other fixed deposits, share certificates and other valuable movables, which are vaguely described in plaint ''B'' to ''D'' schedules. In view of sporadic evidence adduced by the plaintiffs, the learned trial Judge was not able to arrive at a conclusion that late T.K. Nagambal died leaving behind the properties mentioned in plaint A'' to ''D'' schedules. Therefore, the trial Court notwithstanding the fact that some of the defendants conceded the case of plaintiffs, due to absence of any documentary evidence to prove that late T.K. Nagambal had held and left behind plaint A'' to D'' schedule properties, answered issue No. 2 against the plaintiffs. The trial Court has held that plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that late T.K. Nagarabal had held and left behind plaint ''A'' to D'' schedule properties and dismissed the suit.
We have heard Sri Bhasker Paul, learned Counsel for plaintiffs and we have been taken through the evidence on record.
The evidence on record hardly consists of examination-in-chief of IV-plaintiff (PW1) by way of affidavit, wherein the averments of plaint are reiterated IV-plaintiff has not been cross-examined. The plaintiffs have not made good their case by adducing documentary evidence to prove that late T.K. Nagambal had acquired plaint ''A'' to ''D'' schedule properties. There is no lota of evidence to prove that late T.K. Nagambal has enjoyed plaint ''A'' to ''D'' schedule properties when she was alive or left behind the same when she passed away. There is vague reference to plaint B'' to E'' schedule properties. The details regarding fixed deposits and amount kept in fixed deposits and share certificates and also description of valuable movables alleged to have been left by late T.K. Nagambal are not forthcoming. Thus, we find plaint averments, so also the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs is hardly sufficient to prove the case of plaintiffs.
Therefore, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, without any order as to costs.