CJR 1 2014 Law Paper II
CJR 1 2014 Law Paper II
CJR 1 2014 Law Paper II
LAW PAPER-II
Time: 10.00 AM to1.00 PM Max.Marks — 100
ao.00 Dot .taRicit 0.00 riot rtOeulti uctirlth - coo
Note:
Option is given to the candidates to write answers either in
English or in Kannada
5'415 eSM uortr, zint_tel ero4„0-1)*ci a. eztittprrtei
Cdenrtcl
V/ s
Smt. Bhavani
D/o M. Krishnappa
Aged about 28 years
Sri. Gopi
S/o M. Krishnappa
Aged about 26 years
Sri. Prabhakara
S/o M. Krishnappa
Aged about 25 years
The plaintiff submits that the defendants had agreed to sell the
schedule property at ,the rate of Rs.11,60,000/- per acre, the total sale
consideration of Rs.23,20,000/- and the plaintiff agreed to purchase
the schedule property and in this regard the defendants executed a
sale agreement dated 05/11/2005 in favour of the plaintiff and a copy
of the sale agreement is herewith produced and marked as
ANNEXURE 'A'.
SCHEDULE
All that part and parcel of the agricultural land bearing old
Sy.No.159/16 and New No.159/P14 measuring 2 acres of Vijayapura,
Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and
bounded on the:
Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate for Plaintiff Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
I, the Plaintiff do hereby verify and declare that what is stated above is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Bangalore Sd/-
Date: 17/4/2006 Plaintiff
:7:
V/ s
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
Identified by me
Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate Deponent
Bangalore
Date: 17-04-2006
:8:
8 Lthci
9
.)Qcsteeit tg)ciJ
- a) tcatotot actaVs
eacbttc3.
i,,€EZE 3 cZ8:1'd
'0.0D8r/C:t. atzt toa; (-)..,9w/eioc c9, (e‘Q.)ez.
abt) tzot»
veotznatra dtbot l„
tt)t t_tanotad a)benAnt ;drib toa
aort.) 7.7@a)nto
d;.no.scoD
cd, et-O-aat:JD 4PIT.-“-D„FP) p)o.f.i.pd -dr@b7,1
7.90ix-1 5t-tri:4
7-2yo--@ri tzetcrozciti Fo rrn uotd to-De) 7Dte
(mt.
94, ctsonctaLtt.
25 2.3eMatt.)
a enia
-0 to-eat.
rsatt)ct CIPadatjneL.
tuDdtts
:qazoor,inWreig
rfootoot
25 -Doccbtor, 7.ThiEtat) t5t2sOt
e ‘thth n"Dritz.„-th' c-ziDati
et2t7e
t80/-
mnat td terevd)
tbbee)4
esotriecit cavc,tio cv
Mrt.2 trnoactt) t.)e art
mhditt.
OL.000.300L
Zobal.) ft.zus
norlact rripazper.-g)ts,e5„-
•
tits.) mzt' to4 g 7788/2006
m-g)
g Lcbct g
4antnrigot s nntritt)e,
aibbeot gitneatzej
9 maxDActtetot.D
rntatt),4 3reTti3 temutrmhzr.}Bmnrici rix:1
-orti"@ ett6MFICicit.
etrateartog„et.
74'
. 4t_TNIttr
Frot.) rt..)SFAzzlcct
t8eod.)
giorieriact,
a) 2 02..0e0.300t
: 14:
0.5. No.7736/2006
Plaintiff Sri.S.Jayaram,
V/ s
Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate for 1st defendant 1st defendant
: 16 :
VERIFICATION
Devanahalli, Sd/-
Date : 10.4.2007 1st defendant
: 17:
Plaintiff Sri.S.Jayaram,
V/ s
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
Identified by me:
Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate Deponent
Bangalore
Date: 10.04.2006
18 :
e.td.)ri
9
4amnrIct 8 4
. 9e7)6 2-9.77F-dt.1 7..),1), c.addct
0t0Z3 ect
C7M-D eCt.tDepe ReLttl, Leaz).3 th€.3)a)ri
1
467-an 2 Cca 4 drcr S z4tiract,6_ 4 ,7.
mdt.Dt2tc..t aaoccacttpe.)tg
;1 r-t80/-
t2riut tjamnat teeuct tstut EnC)
H 20:
detatett et80/-
in 8 10.04.2007 dfDttUt gaMtr.
: 21 :
49e.attnt.Te
e.td)Cricz
0A-ara6
ott.)
toatzhct.tr3.
rtri.)&80attcts t80/-
7480/- tjtrarkitrcb
tecext
O.S. No.7788/2006
Plaintiff Sri.S.Jayaram,
V/ s
That the averments and claims made in para 3 of the plaint that
the 1st defendant is absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.
No.159/16 and new No.159/P14 measuring 2 acre situated at
Vijayapura, Devanahalli Taluk, is more fully described in the schedule
property is not correct and denied as false. The averments made in
the same para the suit schedule property is Hindu joint family
property. The defendants 1 to 4 are also own right title or interest
over the suit schedule property the 1st defendant she is not at all own
independent funds purchase the suit property, she is house wife of by
profession and also wife of the M.Krishnappa. The said M.Krishnappa
is kartha of the joint family. The defendants 3 and 4 are also in joint
possession in the suit schedule property. There is no partition
between the M.Krishnappa and 1st defendant other family members.
The averments and claims made in para 4 of the plaint are not
correct is false and denied. The defendants No.2 and 3 not at all
aware the transaction of the agreement dated 05.11.2005 and sale
consideration.
The averments and claims made in para 5 of the plaint are not
correct. The suit property is joint family property and the acquisition
of the said property is in accretion at joint nucleus and by the joint
efforts of the family. As such the suit property is joint family property,
the 1st defendant has no exclusive right and title interest over the suit
property and as such the obligation of the 1st defendant to execute the
sale deed in favour of plaintiff does not arise.
That the averments and claims made in para 6 of the plaint are
not correct. This defendants not at all aware the para 6 averments of
the plaint is totally denied and false.
the case.
Wherefore the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 prays that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs, in the
interest of justice and, equity.
Sd/- 2. Sd/-
Advocate for the 3. Sd/-
Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 Defendants
VERIFICATION
Devanahalli, Sd/-
Date : 12/7/2007 Defendant No.2 and 3
: 25 :
Plaintiff Sri.S.Jayaram,
V/ s
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
Identified by me:
Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate Deponent
Devanahalli
Bangalore,
Date: 12/7/2007
: 2.6 :
• .))€
Zdnd9
giBmt3riest s :4)) et)a ot.ntrtt.pe, tisb.„ tat:1W
2",)80/- 2..t80/-
adt) reS_„ 3.7180/-
48=0_1: tieuth B-2.56mnrleot
Tibbee)
ztetete,„, 7)483/-
n 8 12.07.2007 EFIAME:f 2 t.)35..„ 3
: 29 :
mt) ez.-76.o_tcr@tie
Ltht,
tjaz-anrtg) 8 etha nratrtt)6 ratrith
th te de RIEiT"43 rc9eA
oTW tn,Soa cathtipt. taiDrie gamtb qt tt.)e etpot
mt) efit tcittricth 43 titnra rig.)t ot tnactl.
rtzta380=itcip tizo/-
gt..)-u-etair
t Mud.)
tet tq?e),
?Jul ce1.2th
ns 12.07.2007
: 30: •
O.S. No.7785/2006
Plaintiff Sri.S.Jayaram,
V/ s
Age 66 years
Occupation Agriculturist
05/11/2005.
Identified by me
Advocate Sd/-
Devanahalli Deponent
Date: 11/01/2010 Sworn to before me
(At this stage, as the Advocate requested for time, the case is
adjourned)
R.O.I. 86A.C.
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge 86
J.M.F.C.
Witness recalled, duly sworn ell 24.02.2010:
,
know what was the market value of the agricultural lands at
Vijayapura at the time of execution of Ex.P1. The 1 st
defendant has stated that she would execute the sale deed in
respect of the schedule property within 90 days from the date
of Ex.P1. Two months after the execution of Ex.P1, I met the
1st defendant and requested •her to execute the sale deed. I
am unable to say the specific date on which I had gone there
requesting her to execute the sale deed. I alone had gone to
her. Nobody else had come along with me. When I asked the
1st defendant to exeeute the sale deed, her husband
KrishnaPpa also was present. It is not true to say that I did
not meet the 1st defendant within 90 days from execution of
Ex.P1 and requested her to execute the sale deed and that I
am deposing falsely.
No re-examination.
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge 86
J.M.F.C.
: 37:
. ) e carTe.atozt..76
)
e.9tht 9
)1 6marlth - s
ar..) :1)Ca-t1 2..t.mtnst..)6 acattict
cla
?_:btimara
meotd3
z eceAztat
tat; 66 tar
5'dale
c.Wma L34ebe.)--5'
rEettosi) 76'
siorldszt rtz)tnotd net
4)ind ttricx
-7Ddtj 90 nctrlei z,cht to)ho.to.leirtp_o. Ombet ,E3nocd
e.:5 CidQt.)
) a MLi Cot et.C.
75. L&ji T.15.ZU MI4Diericirk -9Th
) d..) u=g)
Elt,z6e76' Qtata) ctariumricbal,d. e5tbor..)'
rbtesatipattc, Ettnoiot ndrz T.2)'17-aDOric2rti t.,--&atuDtei.)
Fdozsed ns 23.01.2006 CSOCi) eistue 4p5=r1
.
- tmcD tort t..3.737.5 eroe;d 5jatt t2z3vrIt..lt Re o
tnatstex Q,936.1,,e7sod.) ..(DeL3,qt torlt gyitzre4ci tcidD
dzrie) argAmb F8.2eartr; dLt..)-azott.D
utd tieloncl emt_cdt; encf.),-LV caoct 4e.
rbargcltd) ma83/-
tio/- gt.mt•Itr
ticut). t=c3 4t.mrantennt
det -co't,
tlorlectract
M8 11.01.2010
.3 maxtritt.,54
mtrl tozoo1
L.b-soe.te.t.a.Lt e.7@ht
ftApt tarau ZertiM&..)eirlg 7)54 c7MtJ .Jaentiag E)e),4 MZM ;5. _„t.Drat
eTAME3 att ElizotUtzot).) Ettecd4itt..) ntadde emit'? ei
'zoda-dmdzi tdz-- Ft
e3t7 aotatr\t zadbV. uttri tti
mt.3e TriMe.:08
txt Lo.,-
- Dcht oao,,
L.78e.te.t.ca.ozi eJ-znd
rtL/-
&bat RiLers'
d.cao.am-6.A.
det
: 45 :
0.S.No.7788./2006
V/ s
Identified by me
Sd/- Sd/-
Advocate Deponent
Re-examination - Nil
Sd/-
: 49:
1).je ca7-76
)
rix-1
t411- .) cbtx)7-anoi.xs
at0i.); 45 'erait
35,5d„ toait/Mrd
tcMotorg cteeatte
Elmatnnt-it“tee ecct
1
utei gald-a5t ±.27_,.)Q.-72F.tct 7.C-Dat utiat riot totA
eme.),5 1 e othto=e.
--J.D-oEMiore_oe
teEO,74.5,te
aoinhtiott.
rtarAZitcb tz0/-
gt.nrettr
teTeucio ctqL t.).)0C3 gty@roti-octenFld
dettt,
2.1oric&2do
38 04.06.2010
ti.1 1 aro Or
t2) rt.r4tuY, tom Ltzcio ae,,E3t.
tc,t 7.1.y&is “925-Nict 4d1 r -m estclq,
tee;tht Zeto:brieio rts:itorst.
1
ivta-.1,00 &L1 toRdo tc.'4)titt,ciot st4 itctaAricpot
est.).L .Q9J.1(cz) uot re.xta4C7D0aDta.
M.L.3E eteM=2, i:11,.• Zit .(ZO rTheobot
5) C...
7 - =.t:A5 Cr& 7:176 ttrz tonopol)-Drfte,erob, t,a5.:_otact cmt)
taebg.
712:0/-
IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE; AT DEVANAHALLI
0.8, No.7788/ 2006
Between:
And
Identified by me
Deponent
Advocate
Devanahalli
Date: 24.06.2010
No. of corrections
adjourned.
R.O.I. 86 A.C.
Sd/-
Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)
J.M.F.C.
: 55 :
schedule property.
(At this stage, the Advocate for the defendant sought permission to
further cross-examination and permission granted)
Re-examination - Nil
Sd/-
Senior Civil Judge &
J.M.F.C.
57 :
a.9d.ptc,
4jamtY-let,t) s A cattith
n.c.mtrtt.)e, Q721.)-
tIciodoe c-atec:tte.
tetirtzt_oe.
nist,-)DM25 'Etc
-9:Atzt elm& zadrip tatez Matuct
racbgne.)„.
: 58 :
rbarAttct etzci-
t gt.Threttr
teeent FLtet t=c5 -4t.)-zraatmcdozttict
det
23°7'1 ci.mt
Mg 24.06.2010
&Doi) ALe.7'
clet Meeat
a. mot A e3
totioond rim-of1/2 ite gamL)
mt.5rtirs
i - tfieoDot
txt a.92,5ald -
L.age.te.t.a.r-Se.mFict
74.80/-
&bat ALet. =F6,
'
tieteteb,e)
ke)
OiXi Estr&d.) td)
Ex.P1
att t.stezzL77i)attrk
cilazzo3D)rleOn *at; pi clitE-t.anezd tjatt
gat tmt affse cmgti) EZ)t tth oi.)t tuzti) et415 et 60
'
7)Dtperi tt.parz d2. o ,00,000
..j0i,JCI trt-Cod
esm-iizt ctc@trap rinan iritrt tsoadatc. rat-tilt 5
,.zeotrItnnAtLet3,-Let
eathgne.L. Timb*St, ,9
Fit3.25-94cbto1 74)7-lett tdt.) tact=
Q.9.)erl v.3--dpi
zaob:-
toi tptils rad)t 4rot?-- 2-00 atd adct atid e..9.)e.) -di tpeeipt
rota p)O.tri id C2th r.)47645 LAI ri 4.3 thitd . \
01Thtlicot :-
: 65 :
Ex.P2
To Date: 23/01/2006
Smt. B. Parvathamma
W/o Sri. M. Krishnappa
Aged about 53 years
Residing at Gurrappana Mata
Vijayapura Town
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District
Madam,
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully
Ex.P-3
BY U.C.P
To
B. Parvathamma
W/o Sri. M. Krishnappa
R/o Gurppana mata
Vijayapura Town
Devanahalli (Tq)
Bangalore Rural District
From
V. Anand
Advocate
No.8/1, Kilari Road
Bangalore-53
Post office seal
: 67 :
Ex..P.-4
India post
Addressed to
B. Parvathamma
W/o Sri. M. Krishnappa
R/o Gurappana mata
Vijaapura Town
Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural District
Sd/- B. Parvathamma
Signature and name
On postal service
To
Sri. V. Anand
Advocate
No.84, Kilari Road
Bangalore-53
Sir,
: 69:
over revenue documents as you offered in your •notice since the joint
family interest subsists my client has no right to execute the sale
deed.
Thanking you
Sd/-
(S.M. Byre Gowda)
Advocate
: 70 : •
Ex.P6
a-&trzet.ltbrt
cate ne..xrat.) Zuotticit rtriretri =dal zac
mtmFictt a.Q.9.t.).)7st.)tptd t.pri ao. mcRo.J.)Ez7) eltd
Late t.pri ac7s. utec-acmoiaro tt-e t 7-4)riedi) zad1ertaka
e.3 a.t4le
i Et notti
Q fl
q cpb ;'‘') e h
r:. c73,riects
cao.z.ivyalisr.be aoijd,tedat,s,toiyi
ntex bf.; e7m,-trivar, Q:ca.-bajd
cae.76. (:).59/80-81.
: 72:
g;
EL
CL
Ex.D-1
things;
appear in 0.S.No.169/2006.
\
To engage and appoint any solicitor, advocate or advocates to
act and plead and otherwise conduct the said case whenever said
'attorney thinks proper to do so. \
1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this deed on this the 14th day
of June, 2010 at Devanahalli.
Identified by me
Devanhalli
Date: 14-06-2010