DPC 2

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
Drafts 1 on 07.012021
Drafting Pleading & Conveyancing (Karnataka State Law University)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|19991145
I. PLEADINGS
SL.No. PARTICULARS PAGE MARKS

No.
1. Interlocutory Application for delay of condonation 1
2. Caveat Petition 4
3. Petition under Karnataka Rent Act 8
4. Complaint before Consumer Forum 11
5. Matrimonial Petition for Divorce 15
6. Civil Petition (Petition for issue of Probate and 19
Succession & Certificate Succession Act)
7. Original suit for Injunction 29
8. Written Statement 34
9. Execution of Decree 43
10. Regular First Appeal 47
11. Regular Second Appeal 55
12. Private Complainant U/S.200 of Cr.P.C. 61
13. Bail Application U/s.439 of Cr.P.C 66
14. Criminal Appeal U/S.378(4) of Cr.P.C 71
15. Writ Petition 77

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
1. INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR UNDER CONDONATION

OF DELAY
An advocate who is practicing fell ill and could not attend his work due to illness.
One case where he was representing was posted for Arguments got dismissed for
non prosecution as the said advocate did not appear before Court. The Advocate
wanted to file review petition on the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court. But to
file the said review Petition the time is lapsed. Hence the Advocate needs to file
Interlocutory Application for under sec 5 of limitation Act and Condone the delay
in filing review Petition. Place yourself as an advocate and draft Application under
Sec 5 of Limitation Act along with Affidavit for condonation of delay.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
R.P. /2013
MFA No. 1727/2009 (MV)
Mr. K.V. Ramakrishna, S/o,

Late K. Venkatanarayan,
Residing At No. 425,
7th Cross, 1st Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 011........................APPELLANT
AND
1. Smt. Rathnamma ,
W/o, Late Venkataramana Swamy,
2. Smt. Cheyamani,
W/o Late Devaraj,
Both are residing at No. 481,
4th Cross, 3rd Main,
Sastry Nagar Bangalore-28.
3. The United Indian Insurance Co- Ltd,

Manandi Court, No. 346/17-01,
27th Cross, 3rd Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011......................RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, for

the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the above named Appellant
prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone the delay of 103 days in
filling of the above Petition , in the interest of justice and equity.
Place : Bangalore
Date : Advocate for Appellant

lOMoARcPSD|19991145

R.P. /2013
MFA. No. 1727/2009 (MVC)
Mr. K.V. Ramakrishna.....................................APPELLANT
AND
Smt. Rathnamma and others …… RESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
I , …………………..S/o. Late, …………………..Aged about ……. years Advocate,

Residing at no. ………………………….-11, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on
oath as follows;-
1. I am the advocate appearing for the Petitioner in the above case and familiar with the
facts of the case.
2. I was suffering from fever sinusytis with hypoglucomia and could not attend any
works from 17.10.2012 to 15.12.2012 and even unable to attend the office. Due to
my absence to attend the MFA No.1727/2009 to address my Arguments the said
Appeal was dismissed on 31.10.2012.on 09/02/2013. when I checked for status of the
said appeal I learnt that the Appeal was dismissed for Non- prosecution on
31.10.2012. Due to the said reason there is a delay of 103 day in filing of the above
Revision appeal. Hence the accompanying application for condonation of delay .The
said delay is not intentional.
3. If the accompanying application is not allowed as prayed for, I will be put to greater
hardship and inconvenience and also cause irreparable loss and injury. Otherwise if
the accompanying application is allowed, no hardship, inconvenience, loss or injury
will cause to the other side.
WHEREFORE, I prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to allow the accompanying
application as prayed for, in the interest of justice and equity.
Identified by me DEPONENT
Advocate
Place: Bangalore
Date :

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
2. CAVEAT PETITION
Mr. Rajesh G. came to advocate office and explain that, he has purchased property
from Dr. Girish Rao.S vide Sale Deed dt.22.09.2008 and the same has been
registered as Document No.BSK-1-03357-2008-09 of Book I, Stored in
C.D.No.BSKD29, dt.29.09.2008 in the office of the Sub-Registrar Banashakari,
Bangalore and got mutated his name in the registers of office of the Bangalore
Development Authority (BDA) and office of BDA also issued the Khatha
Certificate dt.26.09.2008 and also paid the tax to the concern office upto date and
has obtained Plan from the office BDA for the purpose of construction of the
building in the Schedule Property and started construction in accordance with the
Plan issued by the Authorities. One Mr. Yatish who being claimed to be owner of
the backside property towards northern side of the Property started unnecessarily
interfering with the construction work and told that, he will get an injunction order
from the Court to stop the construction. Hence Mr. Rajesh asked an suggestion
regarding the same.
Opinion: Advocate suggested first to file Caveat Petition against Mr.Yatish and
Mr. Rajesh sort for the help of the advocate to file Caveat Petition.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the Caveat Petition for
Mr.Rajesh .

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE MAYOHALL

AT BANGALORE
CAVEATE PETITION No. /2021
Mr. Rajesh G. Aged

about 39 Years
S/o.Mr. Thimmayya,
Residing at No. 2540, 1st Floor,
17th Main, 28th Cross,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 070
Rep.by his GPA Holder

Mrs. Gowri Rajesh …… CAVEATOR
-Vs-
Mr. Yatish
No.1018, 1st Main
2nd Cross, Vijayanagar,
Bnagalore -560 040 ………RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OF PETITION UNDER SECTION 148-A OF THE CODE

OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, the above named Caveator respectfully submits as
follows:
1. The addresses of the parties for the purposes of issue of notice, summons,
etc., by this Hon’ble Court is as shown in the cause title above and that of
the Plaintiff his Counsel Sri .XYZ, Advocates, No.................................,
Bangalore-560 011.
2. The Caveator submits that, the Caveator is the absolute owner in possession
and enjoyment of the immoveable property bearing No.638, B.S.K VI Stage,
V Block, Bangalore which is morefully described in the Schedule hereunder
and hereinafter referred as the Schedule Property has purchased from Dr.
Girish Rao.S vide Sale Deed dt.22.09.2008 and the same has been registered
as Document No.BSK-1-03357-2008-09 of Book I, Stored in
C.D.No.BSKD29, dt.29.09.2008 in the office of the Sub-Registrar
Banashakari, Bangalore. The Caveator got mutated his name in the registers
of office of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) and office of BDA

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
also issued the Khatha Certificate dt.26.09.2008 in favour of the Caveator.

The Caveator also paid the tax to the office of BDA for the period from
01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014, vide challan dt.06.07.2013
3. The Caveator submits that, after the purchase of the Schedule Property the
Caveator is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
4. The Caveator submits that, the Caveator has obtained Plan from the office
BDA for the purpose of construction of the building in the Schedule
Property and started construction in accordance with the Plan issued by the
BDA. The Respondent who being claimed to be owner of the backside
property towards northern side of the Schedule Property started
unnecessarily interfering with the construction work of the Caveator.
5. The Caveator submits that, the Respondent herein is making hectic attempts
to file a suit against the Caveator and to obtain interim stay for construction
in order to cause loss to the Cavetor. Hence, this Caveate Petition.
6. If this Hon’ble Court pass any orders on interim application that may be
filed by the Respondent with respect to the Schedule Property without giving
notice to the Caveator, the Caveator will be put to greater hardship and
inconvenience and also cause irreparable loss and injury. If the Caveator is
given an opportunity to put-forth his case before passing any Orders on the
suit that may be filed by the Respondent, no hardship, inconvenience, loss or
injury will cause to the Respondent.
7. The copy of the Caveate Petition is sent to the Respondent under RPAD
Receipt No.…… & ……….. dispatched from ………….. Post Office,
Bangalore. Copy of the Original Receipt is herewith attached.
WHEREFORE, the Caveator prays that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

order for the issue of notice to the Caveator in case the Respondent file any suit
against the Caveator with respect to the Schedule Property in the interest of justice
and equity
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of Immoveable property of bearing vacant Site No.638,
situated at Banashankari 6th Stage, 5th Block, Bangalore, formed by the Bangalore
Development Authority, Bangalore, and measuring East to West 12 Meters, and
North to South 18 Meters, totally measuring 216 Square Meters bounded on the;

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
East By :Site No.639;

West By : Site No.637;
North By : Site No.629; and
South By :Road.
Advocate for Caveator CAVEATOR

Place: Bangalore
Date:

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
3. PETITION UNDER RENT ACT.
Smt. Pushpamma came to advocate office and explain that, she has let out an
Shop for Rs. 2,500/- to the tenant and she is not vacating the said shop and sort for
the help of an advocate in getting order from the Court.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the petition under section 27(2)
(a) (q) of the karnataka rent act, 1999 for Smt.Pushpamma.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPLE JUDGE OF SMALL CAUSES AT

BANGALORE
H.R.C.NO.60/2011
PETITIONER :- Smt. Pushpamma

W/o M.Venkatesh,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.6/52, 1st Floor,
1st Main, 3rd Cross,
Azadnagar, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore-560 018
V/S -
RESPONDENT :-Smt.Parvathamma
W/o Late Thayappa,
No.6/52, Ground Floor,
1st Main, 3rd Cross,
Azadnagar, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore-560 018
MEMORANDUM OF PETITION UNDER SECTION 27(2) (a) (q) OF THE

KARNATAKA RENT ACT, 1999, the above named Petitioner begs to submit as
follows:-
1. The address of the parties for the purpose of issue summons, notices, etc, as shown
in the cause title and that of the Petitioner her Counsels…………………………
2. The Petitioner is an absolute owner of the entire property bearing No.6/52, 1 st

Main, 3rd Cross, Near Nehru School, Azad Nagar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore -560
018. The shop situated in the Ground Floor measuring East to West 10 feet and
North to South 10 feet, which is more fully described in the Schedule.
3. The Petitioner submits that, the Respondent who requested the Petitioner to rent
the Schedule Property to run a laundry shop on a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- and
accordingly, after entering into a Rental Agreement for Shop on 16.11.2006 by the
Petitioner and the Respondent, the Respondent paid Rs.15,000/- as a security
deposit and the said rent was exclusive of electricity. Further the Respondent
occupied the premises since 01.12.2006 and agreed to pay the monthly rents
regularly within 5th of every month. The Tenancy being English calendar month
commencing from 1st of each month to the last day of the same month.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
4. The Petitioner submits that, the Respondent after occupying the Schedule Property
requested for extension of time and thereby on 01.06.2009 the period was
extended for another 11 months and the Respondent being endorsed on the original
Rental Agreement. The said Original Rental Agreement dt.16.11.2006 with
Endorsement is with the Respondent. The Xerox copy of the Agreement with
Endorsement is with the Petitioner. The Respondent became irregular in payment
of rent since 01.06.2010 and inspite of completion of 11 months the Respondent
failed and neglected to vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the Schedule
Property.
5. The Petitioner submits that, inspite of repeated requests and demands made by the
Petitioner to the Respondent to vacate and to deliver the vacant physical
possession of the Schedule Premises, failed to do so, however, the Respondent
sent a notice dt.24.11.2010 through her Advocate. Inspite of receipt of the said
notice, the Respondent failed to vacate the same on or before 31.12.2010 and also
failed to vacate on 26.01.2011 as agreed upon before the police and also failed to
pay the arrears of rent.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to :

1) To allow the Petitioner by directing the Respondent to vacate and to deliver
the vacant physical possession of the schedule property to the Petitioner;
2) To order for payment of arrears of rent from 01.06.2010 till date after
deducting Rs.5,000/- sent by MO’s.
3) To order for such other relief /reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems just and
property in the circumstances of Case, in the interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All the piece and parcel of the Property bearing No.6/52, 1 st Main, 3rd Cross, Near Nehru
School, Azad Nagar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore -560 018 shop measuring East to West-10
feet and North to South-10 feet. bounded on:
East by : Private Property
West by: Road
North by: Property of Mrs. Vijayalakshmi
South by : Private Property
Advocate for Petitioner PETITIONER
VERIFICATION
I, Smt, Pushpamma , the Petitioner in the above case, what is stated above are true and
correct to the best of my Knowledge, information and belief.
Place : Bangalore
Date :
PETITIONER

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
4. CONSUMER COMPLAINT
Mr. Prabha Shekar came to advocate office and explained that, Viswapriya (India)
Ltd., had issued a Circular/ Hand Bill dt.27.03.2013 calling upon the investors to
invest the amount in Fixed Deposits by declaring that, they will pay interest on the
said deposits either monthly, quarterly or half yearly. Thereby, Mr. Prabha Shekar
who had an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, with an intention to get interest 11% p.a. as
declared by the Opposite Party for senior citizens, the Complainant deposited the
said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Opposite Party, under “Prime Invest” on
15.04.2012 and the same was acknowledged by the Branch office at Bangalore
Firm and issued a Certificate/ Bond as Secured Non-convertable Debentures of
Rs.1,000/- each under Bond Folio No.P115042012/66125 and Bond Certificate
No.53561 dt.15.04.2012 by mentioning the date of redemption as 03.03.2020.
After the date redemption also and even after several requests and demanded
Viswapriya (India) Ltd., is not issuing the amount paid to them. Hence, Mr. Prabha
Shekar sort for the help of the Advocate in getting the amount from Viswapriya
(India) Ltd.,
Opinion: Advocate suggested to file Consumer Compliant against Viswapriya

(India) Ltd.,
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the consumer petition.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
BEFORE THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY CONSUMER DISPUTES AT

BANGALORE
COMPLAINT NO. /2014
BETWEEN:
Ms. Prabha Shekar,
Residing at No.19,
Kutty Colony,
Lalbhagh Siddapur,
Jayanagar, Bangalore – 560 011, …COMPLAINANT
AND:
1. VISWAPRIYA (INDIA) Ltd.,
Corporate office at :-75-C, 2nd Main Road,
Gandhinagar, Adyar,
Chennai – 600 020.
2. Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd.,

# 414, ‘B’ wing, Mittal Towers,
M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 001.............................OPPOSITE PARTIES
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION

ACT 1986
The Complainants respectfully submits as follows:
1. The addresses of the Parties for the purpose of service of Court notice,
summons etc., from this Hon’ble Forum is as stated in the cause title and that
of the Complainants can also be served on his counsel
………………………………………...
2. The Complainant submits that, the Opposite Party i.e Viswapriya (India) Ltd.,
had issued a Circular/ Hand Bill dt.27.03.2013 calling upon the investors to
invest the amount in Fixed Deposits by declaring that, the Opposite Party will
pay interest on the said deposits either monthly, quarterly or half yearly.
Thereby, the Complainant who had an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, with an
intention to get interest 11% p.a. as declared by the Opposite Party for senior
citizens, the Complainant deposited the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the
Opposite Party, under “Prime Invest” on 15.04.2012 and the same was
acknowledged by the Branch office i.e. Opposite Party No.2 at Bangalore
Firm and issued a Certificate/ Bond as Secured Non-

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
convertable Debentures of Rs.1,000/- each under Bond Folio

No.P115042012/66125 and Bond Certificate No.53561 dt.15.04.2012 by
mentioning the date of redemption as 03.03.2020 and copy of the same is
herewith produced as Annexures –A.
3. The Complainant further submits that, the Complainant being a Senior

Citizen and not in a position to move around due to her illness (accidents) she
could not move out. Even the Complainant called the Opposite Party No.1
i.e. the corporate office over phone but there is no proper response from the
Opposite Parties.
4. The Complainant further submits that, the Complainant having no other
alternative issued a legal notice by way of RPAD to the Opposite Party No.2
calling upon them to pay the legitimate amount due to the Complainant under
the above mentioned “Prime Invest” amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with
interest for the month of April 2020, June 2020 and onwards @ 916.70 per
month till the October 2020 @ 11% p.a from the date of receipt of this notice.
But the said notice was returned with shara “Not Claimed”
7. CAUSE OF ACTION:
The Cause of Action to this complaint arose on 03.03.2020, the date. The
complaint is filed within the period of limitation.
8. JURISDICTION:
The Complainant is residing at Bangalore and Opposite Party No.2 is having

office at Bangalore. Hence this Forum has got Jurisdiction to entertain this
Complaint.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Complainant respectfully prays that, this Hon’ble Forum be

pleased to pass an order:
(a) Directing Opposite Party No.1 and No.2 to pay the Complainant
Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid by the Complainant under Prime Invest
dt.15.04.2012 and interest for the month of April 2020, June 2020 @
Rs.916.70 for each month and 11% interest on principal amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from November 2013 till March 2020.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
(b) To Pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the Principal amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from March 2020 to till the date of realization.
(c) To Pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and unnecessary

hardship caused to the Complainant.
(d) To Pay the cost of this proceedings.
(e) And to grant any other relief/s as this Hon’ble Forum deem fit in the
circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice and equity.
ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANTS COMPLAINANTS
VERIFICATION
Ms. Prabha Shekar, the above named Complainant do hereby solemnly

declare that the averments made in the above Complaint at Para (1) to (8) are
true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Place : Bangalore
Date : COMPLAINANTS

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
5. MATRIMONIAL CASE FOR DIVORCE
Mr. Suresh came to advocate office and explained that, he got married to one has
Savitha on 30/06/1999 at Sri Sujatha Kalyana Mantapa, Rajajinagar, Bangalore -
560010 and from past 18 years Smt.Savitha is residing separately as she was not
adjusting with matrimonial home. And now she has filed maintenance petition and
as such Mr. Suresh sort for the help of the Advocate in filing the divorce case
against his wife Smt.Savitha.
Opinion: Advocate suggested to give right-up regarding the facts carried in his
life.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the Divorce Petition for Mr.
Suresh.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU
MC. No.................../ 2020
BETWEEN
Mr. H.S. Suresh,

S/o Sri H.S. Satyanarayana Rao,
R/at No. 38, New No. 122,
Chandrasekhar Nilaya,
2nd Floor, 5th Main,
6th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore – 560003
… PETITIONER
AND
Smt. A.S. Savitha,

W/o. Mr. H.S. Suresh,
R/at No. 117, 2st Floor, 4th Cross,
11th Main, Srinagar,
Bangalore – 560050 … RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OF PETITION UNDER SECTION 13 (1) (ia) (ib) OF

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955
The Petitioner above named humbly submits as follows:-
1. The address of the Petitioner for the purpose of issue of notices, summons
from this Hon’ble Court is a stated in the cause title above and that of their
advocate…………………………………………………….
2. The address of the Respondent for similar purpose is as correctly stated in

the cause title.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
3. The Petitioner submits that, the marriage of both the Petitioner and the
Respondent are governed by Hindu Law and Customs on 30/06/1999 at Sri
Sujatha Kalyana Mantapa, Rajajinagar Bangalore -560010 and it is an
arranged marriage. The Marriage Photograph and Marriage invitation card
are herewith produced as DOCUMENT No.1 & 2 respectively.
4. The Petitioner submits that, contrary to Petitioner’s family’s sentiments, the

Petitioner did not reciprocate any of their feelings right from the day she
moved into matrimonial home. The Petitioner’s family members were
hoping Respondent would slowly take responsibilities of running the
household works, but unfortunately that did not happen even after several
months after the marriage. The Respondent never had the intention to lead
happy matrimonial life with the Petitioner even from the day one. The
Petitioner has suffered lot of humiliation, distress and mental agony at the
hands of Respondent for lengthy period from the first day of the marriage.
The Petitioner was a dutiful husband to the Respondent, even though the
Petitioner was showering love and affection towards the Respondent by
satisfying all their basic demands which are necessary for normal life, the
Respondent use to quarrel against the Petitioner for want of high luxury life.
As the Petitioner was poor financially, the Respondent deserted the
Petitioner long back i.e. on 21.09.2002 as stated in the Petition and was
suffering a lot to satisfy the luxurious demands of the Respondent.
5. The Petitioner further submits that, the harassment and subsequent neglect
of the Respondent towards the matrimonial life has reached such a degree
that it has made the marital life of the Petitioner absolutely intolerable the
Petitioner feeling disappointed and frustrated by the conduct of the
Respondent and the behavior of the Respondent is actually affecting the
mental health of the Petitioner which is grave substantial and weighty.
6. The Petitioner submits that, the Respondent has ruined the life of the
Petitioner and the Respondent has made the Petitioner to suffer a lot
mentally as the Respondent did not give any opportunity to begotten the
child and grow generation of the Petitioner, by deserting the Petitioner
without any reasonable grounds.
7. The Petitioner submits that, after continues desertion of 18 years the

Respondent with an intention to harass the Petitioner has filed the above
Petition and the Respondent being deserting wife is not entitled as prayed for
in the Petition.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
8. The marriage of the Petitioner took place at Bangalore and the Parties are
the resident in Bangalore. Hence for all purposes this Hon’ble court is
having jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate above petition.
9. The cause of action accrued to the Petitioner against the Respondent, on

30/06/1999 when the Petitioner and Respondent got married, on 21.09.2002
when the Respondent deserted the Petitioner and when the Respondent
tortured Petitioner physically as well as mentally and the same is in
continues till today.
10.The Petitioner has not approached either this Hon’ble court or any other
court of law for same relief earlier to filling of the above case.
11.The Petitioner has paid required court Fee …….
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully prays that,

a. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass Judgment and Decree by dissolving
the marriage of the Petitioner and the Respondent solemnized on 08/09/2013
at Yediyooru Samudaya Bhavana, Kanakapura Main Road, Opposite to
Yediyooru Lake Bangalore
b. To direct the Respondent to pay permanent alimony of sum of
Rs.20,00,000/- to the Petitioner by the Respondent.
c. And to pass such other orders as this Hon’ble court deems fit and necessary
in the interest of justice and equity.
Advocate for Petitioner PETITIONER

VERIFICATION
I, the Petitioner in the above case do hereby verify that the statement made at
paragraphs 1 to 15 of the Petition are true to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
Place: Bangalore PETITIONER

Date:

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
6. CIVIL PETITION
Smt.Maalamma @ Sulavai Mallamma approached an advocate stating that, one

Mr.Kumar was suffering from blood-pressure, Diabetic, Heart problem and TB
etc., He was resting at home and was taken to respective hospital by her for his
medical check-up. The said Mr. Kumar due to massive heart attack expired on 15-
07-2018. She continued to remain in his entire house along with her family
members. one Mr.Arun Kumar after the death of Mr.Kumar handed over an
unregistered WILL dated 26-06-2018, executed by Mr.Kumar under which the
Smt. Maalamma became the absolute beneficiary. Smt.Maalamma got the said
WILL readover from the said Mr.Arun Kumar and for more clarification the She
got it details explained to her from an Advocate also. Hence, Smt. Maalamma sort
for the help of the Advocate in getting the benefit of the will.
Opinion: Advocate suggested to file petition for issue of Probate and Succession
certificate.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the consumer petition.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BENGALURU

P & SC NO......................../2020
BETWEEN
Smt.Maalamma @ Sulavai Mallamma,
W/o.Sri.Manjunath,
R/at No.324, 16th A Main Road,
4th T Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru- 560 041. -- PETITIONER
AND
1. The Manager
Tumkur Grain Marchants
Co- Operative Bank Ltd.
HO : B.H. Road, Tumkur.
Also at:
Jayanagar 3rd Block,
Bengaluru- 560 011.
2. The Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Tilakanagar Branch,
Bengaluru- 560 041. -- RESPONDENTS
MEMORANDUM OF PETITION UNDER SECTION 276 OF THE

SUCCESSION ACT
The Petitioner respectfully submits that :-
1. The address of the parties are correctly stated in the cause title and that of the
Petitioner’s counsel ……………………………………………………for the
purpose of court summons etc.
2. It is submitted that, one M.V.Subramanyan S/o M.G.Vaidyanath Iyar was a

permanent Residing at No.324, 16th A Main Road, 4th T Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore and was residing in that, address along with his wife namely
Smt.Radhamani and his only son Kumar.S. and was the absolute owner of the
above referred property.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
3. It is submitted that, the said M.V.Subramanyan, was age old, aliening from
bodily disorders and as such their family friend one Arun Kumar at their
behest the Petitioner requested to serve the said M.V.Subramanyan at his
residence. Accordingly from the year 2008 the Petitioner started serving
M.V.Subramanyan by taking care of his personal needs, Cooking, Cleaning
and allied house Chor woks. As the said M.V.Subramanyan and his son
Kumar.S appreciated the Petitioner ’s work, the Petitioner was allowed to stay
put in their house at 1st Floor in the year 2013, where the Petitioner started to
stay-in along with her husband and three school going children. Mr.Kumar.S
the only son of M.V.Subramanyan was married to one Smt.Shrinidhya.R and
their marriage ended in a Divorce. They had no Issues. Even the said
Kumar.S was suffering from bodily deceases like B.P., Diabetic and was a
heart patient also. As the days passed Smt.Radhamani the mother of Kumar.S
expired on 05-11-2003 and subsequently, M.V.Subramanyan expired on 11-
08-2015, leaving behind their only son Mr.S.Kumar. The said Kumar
remained unmarried after Divorce since he was suffering from several
aliments. As per Kumar’s request the Petitioner continued to serve him also.
Mr.Kumar was kind enough to bear the School fee and expenses of the
Petitioner’s children. The Petitioner had all respect towards Late
M.V.Subramanyan and Mr.Kumar and the Petitioner honestly, sincerely
served them by performing all kind of work. The copy of the Death
Certificate of M.V.Subramanayan and his Wife Radhamani are produced
herewith as Documents No.1 & 2.
4. It is submitted that, Mr.Kumar was also suffering from blood-pressure,

Diabetic, Heart problem and TB etc., He was resting at home and was taken
to respective hospital by the Petitioner for his medical check-up. The said
Mr.Kumar due to massive heart attack expired on 15-07-2018. The Petitioner
continued to remain in his entire house along with her family members. It is
submitted that, one Mr.Arun Kumar after the death of Mr.Kumar handed over
an unregistered WILL dated 26-06-2018, executed by Mr.Kumar under which
the Petitioner became the absolute beneficiary. The Petitioner got the said
WILL readover from the said Mr.Arun Kumar and for more clarification the
Petitioner got it details explained to her from an Advocate also. As advised by
an Advocate, the Petitioner presented the WILL dated 26-06-2018 before the
office of the Sub-Registrar Jayanagar, Bangalore, to register the same. The
Sub-Registrar after following the procedure registered the said WILL as
Document No.BNG(U) JNR-404/2018-19, BKIII and the said registered
WILL is now in the custody of Petitioner . It is submitted that, the Petitioner
is in continuous possession and enjoyment of property bearing

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
No.324, 16th A Main Road, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, along with her
family members as its absolute owner even to this day. A Copy of Death
Certificate of Mr.Kumar, Notarized copy of the registered WILL are
produced herewith as Documents No.3 & 4.
5. It is submitted that, during the life time of Mr.Kumar he had submitted an

affidavit declaration before the BBMP Bangalore detailing that, he is the only
son to Late M.V.Subramanyan and Radha Mani and further he has stated that,
he has no Issues out of his wedlock. A Copy of the affidavit declaration is
produced herewith as Document No. 5 & 6.
6. It is submitted that, the deceased Kumar.S during his life time has deposited
with 1st Respondent i.e.. Tumkur Grain Merchant Co-operative Bank, fixed
amount. The copies of FD certificate are produced herewith as Document
No. 7 to 9.
7. It is submitted that, the depositor deceased Mr.Kumar, aviled loan of

Rs.1,00,000/- on FD No.008296, dated 03-08-2016, and Rs.2,43,000/- on FD
No.088854, dated 05-02-2018. All the original are still available with bank.
The 1st Respondent crediting proportionate interest on every year to the SB
Account of deceased Kumar standing at 1st Respondent bank, vide
No.30304142948.
8. It is submitted that, the deceased M.V.Subramanyan/Kumar.S during their life

time have made fixed deposit with 2nd Respondent i.e. Syndicate Bank,
Bangalore. The details are below:-
Sl.N FD No. Date Amount Maturity date Maturity

o. amount
1. 786324 01-01-2014 1,00,000/- 01-01-2019 1,45,000
2. 928637 02-03-2015 1,50,000/- 02-03-2020 2,17,500
The copies of FD certificate are produced herewith as Document No.10 & 11.
9. It is submitted that, after the death of Kumar, the Petitioner exercising her
rights under the registered WILL dated 16-10-2018, approached the
respondents Bank to encash the remaining fixed deposit amounts. The 1 st
Respondent issued a letter on 16-06-2019 with an advise to obtain the
Succession Certificate. The Bank Letter is produced herewith as Document
No.12.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
10.The 2nd Respondent after verifying their records transferred the FD amount of
Rs.12,00,000/- along with accrued interest in respect of FD No.929280, dated
16-09-2015, to the Petitioner’s SB Account No.04702010097730 that
standing at Syndicate Bank, Tilakanagara Branch, Bangalore. The 2 nd
Respondent also transferred the balance amount of deceased Kumar available
as on June 2019 standing in SB Account No.047020100711208. Later the 2nd
Respondent Bank orally instructed the Petitioner to submit the Succession
Certificate in order to release the remaining two FD bonds. The SB Account
Extracts are produced herewith as Document No.13 & 14.
11.The cause of action for the petition arose on 16-06-2019, when the 1 st
Respondent advised the Petitioner to approach the court on 02-06-2020,
when the 2nd Respondent orally instructed the Petitioner to approach the court
for the relief and the same is continuous and subsisting one within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
12.A fixed Court fee is paid as per separate Valuation slip.
13.No other proceedings are instituted against the Respondent on the very same
cause of action, concerning the schedule property and there are no pending
proceedings also in this regard.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass
judgment as below :-
a) Issue the Succession Certificate to the Petitioner concerning the schedule Items.
b) Direct the 1st Respondent to release the amount in favour of Petitioner in respect
of FD receipt No.008296, dated 03-08-2016, 088854, dated 05-02-2018,
088776, dated 28-11-2017, and SB Account No.30304142948, shown in the
schedule Item No.1 to 3 along with assured interest from the date of Fixed
Deposit till the date of payment.
c) Direct the 2nd Respondent to release the amount in favour of Petitioner in

respect of FD receipt No.786324, dated 01-01-2014 and No.928637, dated 02-
03-2015, shown in the schedule Item No.4 & 5 along with assured interest from
the date of Fixed Deposit till the date of payment.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
d) Such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances
of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE
1. Fixed Deposit receipt No.008296, dated 03-08-2016, for Rs.1,50,000/-,
standing at Tumkur Grain Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. H.O.
B.H.Road, Tumkur.

B.H.Road, Tumkur.
B.H.Road, Tumkur.
standing at Syndicate Bank, Tilakanagar Branch, Bengaluru.
standing at Syndicate Bank, Tilakanagar Branch, Bengaluru.
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER PETITIONER
VERIFICATION
I, Mallamma @ Sulavi Mallamma, the Petitioner herein, do hereby stated

in the above para No.1 to 12 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief and the documents produced are Xerox of the original.
Place : Bangalore
Date: .09. 2020 PETITIONER

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
7. ORGINAL SUIT FOR INJUNCTION
ORGINAL SUIT FOR INJUNCTION
Smt. Sheela K.M came to advocate office and explain that, one GPA is executed in
her favour and she is possession of the property and some third parties are interring
with her possession of the property and she require the assistance of the advocate
to protect her possession of the property and requested an advocate to file a suit
against the said third parties.
Opinion: Advocate suggested first to get all documents with respect to her
possession to the property and she gave all documents to and advocate and sort for
the help of the advocate to file suit.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the Injunction Suit for Smt.
Sheela.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT BANGALORE

O.S. No. /2020
BETWEEN:
Smt. SHEELA K.M

D/o. Nagaraju,
Residing at No. 70/28,
Behind Swayam Prabha Kalyana Mantapa,
(Lakshmi Enterprises), Meenakshi Nagar,
Kamakshi Palya, Magadi Road,
Bangalore - 560 079..................................................................PLAINTIFF
AND
1. Sri. GOPI. Y.H.
S/o not known
Major
2. Sri. ANAND. Y.H.

S/o not known
Major
Both are Residing at

No.95, 2nd Main Road,
Channigappa Layout,
Kamakshipalya,
Bangalore 560 079..........................................................DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 OF THE

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, the above named Plaintiff respectfully submits
as follows:-
1. 1. The addresses of the parties for the purpose of Court notices, summons, etc.,
as given in the above cause title and that of the Plaintiff and her Counsel
Smt………………………………………………………………………...
2. The Plaintiff submit that, the Plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of the immovable property bearing No. 70/28, Behind Swayam

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
Prabha Kalyana Mantapa, (Lakshmi Enterprises), Meenakshi Nagar, Kamakshi

Palya, Magadi Road, Bangalore -560 079, measuring East to West 35+70/20
and North to South 35+70/2 compromising of 4 squares asbestos sheet roofed
house which is morefully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter
referred to as the "SCHEDULE PROPERTY".
3. The Plaintiff further respectfully submit that, initially the suit Schedule
Property belonged to Mr. Honnappa. The said Mr. Honnappa sold Suit
Schedule Property in favour of the plaintiff on 17.03.1993 vide GPA and
affidavit by receiving the Sale consideration amount. He has delivered the
possession of the Suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff and from the date of
the delivery of possession, the Plaintiff is in the lawful Possession of the suit
Schedule Property.
4. The Plaintiff further respectfully submit that, on 28.06.2018 the Defendants

NO.1 and 2 along with 3 others came near the Suit Schedule Property and
scolded the Plaintiff using unconstitutional language and attempted to
dispossess the Plaintiff from the suit Schedule Property by taking law into their
own hands and also the Defendants threatened the Plaintiff that, they will see
that, the Plaintiff will be evicted from Property forcibly. Hence this suit.
5. The Plaintiff further respectfully submits that, if the Defendant no.1 and 2 are
not restrained permanently from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the Schedule
Property, the Plaintiff will be put to greater hardship and inconvenience and
also cause irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in
monetary terms.
7. The Cause of action for the suit are arose on 28.06.2018 when the Defendant
came near the Schedule Property and threatened the Plaintiff to evict forcibly;
which is continuous, within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court at Bangalore.
6. The Plaintiff has not filed any suit against the Defendants before any court or
Authority.
9. The Court Fee is paid on the Plaint as per the valuation slip annexed.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass
Judgement and decree against the Defendant.
a. To grant permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.1 & 2, his

agents or followers from interfering with peaceful possession and

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property by the Plaintiff or to evict the

Plaintiff without due process of law;
b. To grant costs of this suit.
c. To grant such other relief or relief that this Hon'ble Court deem just and
proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing No. No. 70/28,
Behind Swayam Prabha Kalyana Mantapa, (Lakshmi Enterprises), Meenakshi
Nagar, Kamakshi Palya, Magadi Road, Bangalore -560 079, measuring East to
West 35+70/20 and North to South 35+70/2 compromising of 4 squares
asbestos sheet roofed house and bounded on to the
East by : Road,
West by : Siddagangaiah’s house
North by : Mori
South by : private property
Advocate for Plaintiff PLAINTIFF

VERFICATION
I, Smt. Sheela K.M., the Plaintiff in the above case, do hereby declare that
whatever stated in the above paras are true to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
Place : Bangalore.
Date : 03.07.2018 PLAINTIFF

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
8. WRITTEN STATEMENT
Smt. Veena came to advocate office and explain that, he has purchased property
Site No. 1150, HBR Layout, 1st stage, 5th Block, Bengaluru measuring East-West 40 feet, and
North-South 30 feet and some has constructed an house in her property and all relevant
documents in that respect and further that, when the same was question by her with the parties
who are residing the house, they have filed injunction suit and obtained ex-parte injunction order
in their favour. She stated that, the property belongs to her and provided all necessary documents
with respect to the same. Sort for the help of the advocate in said injunction case.
Opinion: Advocate suggested looking into an plaint and injunction order passed
by the court and further other documents with respect to property is of an opinion
that, the property belongs to her.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the Written statement for
Smt.Veena .

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
BEFORE THE HON’BLE PAINCIPAL CITY JUDGE

AT BENGALURU
O.S. No. 699 /2017
Plaintiff : Smt. Shobha Lingaraju
-V/s-
1st defendant : Smt. Veena H.B.

and another
WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1st DEFENDANT U/O VIII

RULE 1 & COUNTER CLAIM U/O VIII RULE 6(A) R/W 151 OF C.P.C.
1. The suit filed by the Plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction is not
maintainable either in law or on facts. Therefore, the same is liable to be
dismissed in limine.
2. The address of the defendants mentioned in the cause title is incorrect. At

the time of filing suit and prior to that, defendant no. 1 and 2 were not
residing in the said address. The 1st defendant has been residing at
Melbourne, Australia since 2015. The 2nd defendant is the permanent
resident of Siddarthanagar, Mysuru. At the time of filing the suit, in the
addresss of defendants shown in the cause title, the tenant of defendant no.
2 was residing.
3. The averments made in para 1 of the Plaint that, the Plaintiff is the absolute
owner in possession and enjoyment of the house property constructed in
Southern portion of Site bearing No. 09, BBMP, Khatha No. 4/80/14/9,
formed in property No. 8014, measuring East to West 40 feet, North to South
15 feet, along with RCC roofed building consisting of ground floor situated
at Hennur, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, presentaly
coming within the Jurisdiction of BBMP, which is morefully described at the
schedule hereunder and herein after referred to as schedule property are all
false and incorrect, hence the Plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same.
4. The averments made in para 2 of the Plaint that, the Plaintiff has acquired
title to suit schedule property under Registered Sale Deed dated: 06-01-2016

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
executed by Sri. S. Sunil Kumar and the said Sale Deed has been Registered
in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagara (Kacharakanahalli),
Bengaluru North Taluk, as document No. 6302/2015-16, Book – I, Stored in
C.D. No. 201, dated: 06-01-2016 are all denied as false and incorrect, hence
the Plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same.
5. The averments made in para 3 of the Plaint that, on the basis of Sale Deed
dated: 06-01-2016 the local Authorities have entered the Khatha in the name
of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and that continuously
she has been paying taxes to the concerned authority, are all denied as false
and incorrect, hence the Plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same.
6. The averments made in para 4 of the Plaint that, on 06-01-2016 the Plaintiff
has obtained loan from ‘Can Fin Homes Limited’ for which she has
executed the ‘Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds’ by mortgaging the
suit schedule property and she pledged the original documents in the said
Bank and the said Mortgage has been Registered in the office of the Sub-
Register (Kacharakanahalli), as Document No. 6306/2015-16, stored in C.D.
No. 201 are not known to 1st defendant, hence the Plaintiff is put to the
strict proof of the same.
7. The averments made in para 5 of the Plaint that, the land bearing Sy. No.
80/14 of Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, is totally
measuring 1 acre 04 guntas originally the said property was belongs to V.
Kuppuswamy S/o Varadappa Mudaliar, and the Said V. Kuppuswamy
purchased the land bearing Sy. No. 80/14 measuring 1 acre 04 guntas of
Hunnuru Village under a Registered Sale Deed dated: 12-12-1968 from Sri.
Adivappa and others are not known the 1st defendant, hence the plaintiff is
put to the strict proof of the same.
8. The averments made in para 6 of the Plaint that, the said V. Kuppuswamy
died on 14-10-1996 leaving behind his widow and children to succeed his
estate as his legal heirs, after the death of V. Kuppuswamy his widow and
children have inherited the properties of V. Kuppuswam, however the
Khatha of the was transferred to the name of Smt. Lakshmamma W/o Late
V. Kuppuswamy with the consent of other legal heirs are not known the 1st
defendant, hence the Plaintiff is put to the strict of the same.
9. The averments made in para 7 of the Plaint that, on 30-05-2014 the widow
and the children of the deceased V. Kuppuswamy have jointly sold the site

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
No. 9 measuring East to 40 feet and North to South 30 feet, in favour of

Sri.S. Anil Kumar and the said Sale Deed has been Registered in the office
of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagara, (Kacharakanahalli), Bengaluru
North Taluk, as Document No. 875/2014-15, Boo No. -1, stored in C.D. No.
170, dated: 30-05-2014 are not known to the 1st defendant, hence the
Plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same.
10.The averments made in para 8 of the Plaint that, on the basis of the Sale
Deed dated: 30-05-2014, the local authorities have entered the Khatha in the
name of Sri. S. Anil Kumar in respect of the Site No. 9, measuring East to 40
feet and North to South 30 feet and that continuously he has been paid taxes
to the concerned authority are not known to the 1st defendant, hence the
Plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same.
11.The averments made in para 9 of the Plaint that, subsequent to the Sale Deed
dated: 30-05-2014 i.e., in the month of January 2015 said Sri. S. Anil Kumar
has constructed and shed over the suit schedule property and in the month of
March 2015 he obtained the electricity connection to the said shed, further
he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as
the absolute owner till he sold the same in favour of the vendor of the
Plaintiff herein, however the electricity connections still is in the name of
said Sri. Anil Kumar and the vendor of the Plaintiff did not transfer to in his
name are all false, hence the plaintiff is put to the strict proof of the same.
12.1st defendant hereby deny the averments of the plaint, which are not
specifically denied as false and put the plaintiff to the strict proof of the
same.
13.1st defendant respectfully submits that, the Bangalore Development

Authority formed Hennur-Bellary road (HBR) 1 st stage, 5th Block Layout,
by acquiring land in Sy.No. 77 of Hennur village. Sri A.K.S. Nadiga S/o
A.N. Krishnamurthy R/at Bengaluru had filed an application for grant of
BDA site. The BDA has allotted site no. 1150 to him formed in HBR 1st
stage, 5th Block layout, Bengaluru measuring East-West 40 feet and North-
South 30 feet. The said property is hereinafter called as written statement
schedule property. The BDA has issued allotment letter dated: 21-12-
1988 to A K S Nadiga and possession certificate dated: 08-05-1989 and put
the allotee A K S Nadiga in possession of written statement scheduled
property. On 28-07-2000 the BDA has executed registered sale deed in his
favour in respect of written statement scheduled property. On the basis of

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
the above documents the khatha of the written statement property was made
in his name and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said
property as absolute owner by paying tax to the Bengaluru city corporation.
14.It is submitted that, the Defendant No. 1 has purchased the written statement
scheduled property under registered sale deed dated: 14.12.2011 from A K S
Nadiga for consideration of Rs. 36,00,000/-. The sale deed was registered in
the office of Senior Sub-Registrar, Banasavadi, Bengaluru. Since, the date of
sale deed defendant no. 1 is in possession and enjoyment of the written
statement schedule property. On the basis of the said sale deed, khatha of the
written statement scheduled property was effected in her name and she has
been paying tax in respect of the said property to Bengaluru city corporation.
15.It is submitted that, the husband of 1st defendant has been working as
software engineer at Melbourne in Australia. Since July 2015 1st defendant
has been living in Melbourne in Australia along with her husband.
Therefore, the allegations made by the plaintiff in para 15 of the plaint that
on 25.01.2017 at about 10-00 a.m. 1st defendant and their henchmen came
near the suit property and made attempt to tresspass in to the suit property
and interfered with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of suit property are
utterly false. Therefore, the cause of action alleged in the plaint to file the
suit is false, frivolous, vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff.
16.It is submitted that, the site alleged to have been purchased by plaintiff was
formed in Sy.No. 80/14 of Hennur village. The written statement schedule
property is a vacant site formed in Sy.No. 77 of Hennur Village. In between
the lands in Sy.No. 77 and 80 the lands in Sy.No. 78 and 79 situate.
Therefore, the site alleged to have been purchased by plaintiff is far away
from the written statement scheduled property. It appears that, Plaintiff has
no knowledge about the exact location and identity of her property. From
the averments of the plaint it is evident that, the site alleged to have been
purchased by the plaintiff has been in litigation since several years. Plaintiff
who has been litigating in respect of site alleged to have been purchased by
her, by taking undue advantage of the absence of 1st defendant in India with
a malafide intention to grab the written statement scheduled property started
construction in the month of January 2017. 2nd defendant, the father of 1st
defendant came to know about the said illegal acts of plaintiff in the 3rd
week of January 2017. Immediately he lodged

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
complaint to Hennur police station on 23.01.2017. The police called the

plaintiff to the police station. In the police station the plaintiff has given
under taking that she will not proceed with the construction her property
and written statement schedule property are measured and identified. In
spite of the said under taking by the plaintiff by taking support of unlawful
elements and by using money, muscle power hurriedly completed the
construction of building in the written statement schedule property. Plaintiff
has no manner of any right, title, interest in or over the written statement
scheduled property. Therefore, the construction of house by plaintiff on the
written statement schedule property is illegal. Therefore, it has to be
demolished through the process of the court.
17.1st defendant respectfully submits that, they will not claim any manner of
right, title, interest or possession over the site no. 9 formed in Sy.No. 80/14
of Hunnur village, which site the plaintiff alleged to have purchased. From
the averments of the plaint, it is clear that, plaintiff is not claiming any
manner of right, title, interest in or over the written statement scheduled
property i.e., site no. 1150 of HRB 1 st stage, 5th Block layout, formed in the
land in Sy.No. 77 of Hunnur village. The core of the dispute is, whether the
plaintiff constructed building in the site no. 9 in sy.no. 80/14 of Hunnur
village or site no. 1150 of HRB 1st stage, 5th block layout, formed in the land
in Sy.No. 77 of Hunnur village. The said dispute can be resolved easily by
appointing commission to measure, identify and locate the above stated two
sites on the basis of survey records and layout plans.
18.The cause of action to seek the relief of mandatory injunction by way of
counter claim has arisen in the month of January 2017 when the 1st
defendant came to know about the commencement of illegal construction of
house by plaintiff in the written statement schedule property.
19.The court fee, for the counter claim is paid as per the valuation made in the
valuation slip annexed to the counter claim.
PRAYER
i. The relief of mandatory injunction directing the plaintiff to
demolish the house illegally constructed by him in the written
statement schedule property and put the 1 st defendant in vacant
possession of the said property.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
ii. Direct the plaintiff to pay mesne profits to the 1st defendant for
unauthorized occupation of written statement scheduled property
from January 2017 till the plaintiff put the 1st defendant in
vacant possession of written statement schedule property.
iii. For court cost and other reliefs which the Hon'ble court deems fit
to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case.
WHEREFORE, the 1st defendant humbly prays this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
dismiss the Plaintiff's suit with exemplary costs and decree the counter claim in
the interst of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All the piece and parcel of Site No. 1150, HBR Layout, 1st stage, 5th Block,
Bengaluru measuirng East-West 40 feet, and North-South 30 feet and bounded on the,
East by - site no. 1151
West by - Road
South by - Site no. 1149
North by - Private Property.
Advocate for Defendant no. 1 Defendant no. 1

nd
(2 defendant in his personal capacity
and attorney holder of 1st defendant
signed above).
VERIFICATION
What are all stated above from para 1 to 29 are true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief whereof in token I have
signed this today at Bengaluru.
Place: Defendant no. 1

nd
Date : (2 defendant in his personal capacity
and attorney holder of 1st defendant
signed above).

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
9. EXECUTION OF THE DECREE
Mr. N.R. Subrahmanyam came to the advocate and informed that, he has not
received payment from Sri. Sashidharan.S and Smt. Pushpalatha as per the
compromise entered between them. Hence requested an advocate to file execution
petition against Sri. Sashidharan .S and Smt. Pushpalatha and handed over the
Orders passed by court. Sort for the help of the advocate to execution case.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the Execution petition for Mr.
N.R. Subrahmanyam.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH 16)
Execution Case No. /2020
In
OS No. 4026/2020
UNDRE ORDER 21 RULE 11 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
1. Decree Holder’s name Mr. N.R. Subrahmanyam

and address S/o Late Narasimha Murthy,
Residing at: 923,
7th Cross, 2nd Block, B.S.K I stage,
Bangalore – 560 050.
2. Address of the Judgment 1. Sri. Sashidharan .S Aged

Debtor about 53 years, Residing
at “Sampurna”, No. 5
(96), 1st Floor, 6th cross,
N.R. Colony, Bangalore
– 560 019.
2. Smt. Pushpalatha,
Residing at “Sampurna”,
No. 5 (96), 1st Floor, 6th
cross, N.R. Colony,
Bangalore – 560 019.
3. Date of Decree 07.11.2020
4. Whether any appeal has -NO-

been preferred by the
Decree Holder
5. Payment of adjustments -Not Applicable-
made if any

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
6. Previous application if -NO-

any with date and result
7. Nature of Suit
Money Recovery
8. Net amount claimed
Principal Amount Rs. 63,00,000-00
Int. at the rate of 2% p.m Rs. 1,26,000-00
for Oct and Nov 2020 64,26,000-00
Total
9. Against whom execution Judgment Debtors house
to be executed- mode in property as mentioned in the
which the assistance of schedule and bank
the court sought
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All this piece and parcel of residential house property in Ground Floor of the
Northern portion of the property bearing Old No.93/149/96, then No.148, New
Municipal No.5, situated at 6th Cross, Narasimharaja Colony, Bangalore, Old PID
No.51-26-5, New PID No.154-WOO48-11-2, within the limits of Old BBMP Ward
No.51, New BBMP Ward No.154, together with 50% undivided share, in total land
measuring of East to West 36 feet, and North to South 44 ½ feet, i.e. 801 Sq. Feet,
together with 1024 Sq. Feet, of RCC Roofed building in Ground Floor, constructed
with Red Oxide Building, Honne Wood Doors, and Steel Windows with all civic
amenities like Electricity, Water and sanitary connection and bounded on the:
East by : 4 x 44 ½ feet Common passage and then property No.4/97/150.

West by : Property No.6/95/148,
North by: Road,
South by: Now Property belongs to the purchaser V.Pushpalatha.
Advocate for the Decree Holder’s Decree Holder
I, the Decree Holder above named do hereby declare that what is stated
above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Place : Bangalore
Date: 08 -12-2020 N.R. Subrahmanyam
Decree Holder

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
10. REGULAR FIRST APPEAL
Mr. S.V. Nanjunda Murthy came to an advocate and enquired about the orders
passed in O.S. 6195/2011 and the Advocate explained him that, the court has
dismissed the suit for Partition and the same is not maintainable and he has to
approach High court of Karnataka and file Regular First Appeal changeling the
Orders passed by the trail Court. And advocate further explained that, they good
grounds for appeal against the Orders passed by the trail Court. Mr. S.V. Nanjunda
Murthy sort for the help of the Advocate in filing RFA.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the RFA Mr. S.V. Nanjunda
Murthy.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
Regular First Appeal No. /2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS

JUDGE AT BANGALORE
O.S.No.6554/2009/2002

R.F.A. No. /2016
BETWEEN Rank of Parties

↓ ↓
1. Mr. S.V. Nanjunda Murthy Trial court High court

S/o. late. S.L. Vydiannathan,
Residing at Apartment No.4042,
Prestige Wellington Park,
Jalahalli,
Bangalore -560 013 Plaintiff No.1 Appellant No.1
2. Mr. S.V. Vasanthan,

S/o. S.L. Vydiannathan,
Residing at No.3-1-81,
Vijay, Rajiv Gandhi Road,
Gremspete,
Chitoor-517002, Plaintiff No.2 Appellant No.2
AND

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
Mr.S.V.Sambanda Murthy
S/o. Late.S.L. Vydinathan,
Since deceased, rep.by his LRs.
1. Mrs. Lakshmi Bai Sambanda Murthy

R/at No.11/8, Jnanakshi,
Osborne Road,
Bangalore -560 042 Defendant No.1(a) Respondent No.1
2. Mr. S. S. Gowrishankar,
S/o. Late. Sambanda Murthy,
R/at. No.1811, whispering Meadows Court,
Frederic Mary Land – M.D.21702-5919 Defendant No.1(b) Respondent No.2
3. Mr. S.S. Paani Velu,

S/o. Late. Sambanda Murthy,
Residing at No. 11/8, Jnanakshi,
Osborne Road,
Bangalore -560 042 Defendant No.1(c) Respondent No.3
4. Mr. Shamugavadivelu,
S/o. Late. S.L. Vydiannathan,
R/at No. B-108, “Brindavanam”
Senior Citizen Foundation,
Guhan Gardens, Lakshminagar,
Thondamatha Road,
Coimbatore- 641046 Defendant No.2 Respondent No.4
MEMORANDUM OF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96

R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC
1. The Address of the Appellants for the purpose of Court Notices, etc., is
that of their Counsel

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
…………………Advocate,………………………………………………
…………..
2. The Address of the Respondent for the similar purpose is also shown in
the cause title.
3. The Appellant submit that they filed a suit for partition against the
Defendants seeking for their share in the property bearing New
municipal No.23, “Sathya”, Shanti Road, Shanthinagar, Opp : Morning
Glory Road, Bangalore bearing Old Site No.5, (Plot No.C, formed out of
the property bearing Survey No.12/1 & 13 of Akkithemmenahalli
Village), 1st Cross, Venson Layout, Shnatinagar Civil Station,
Bangalore. The said property is more fully described in the schedule
hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the Scheduled property.
4. The Appellants submit that the aforesaid suit was numbered as O.S.
No.6195/2011, before the Hon’ble IX Additional City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bangalore (CCH-5). It is further submitted that the Hon’ble
Court has in terms of its Judgment and Decree Dt.05.03.2016, dismissed
the suit of Appellants.
5. Thus Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated :05.03.2016, passed

by the Hon’ble IX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore(CCH.5), in O.S. No.6195/2011, the Appellants prefer this
Regular First Appeal before this Hon’ble Court on the following facts
and grounds amongst other grounds in support of their prayer
Facts of the Case

6. It is submitted that Appellants and the Respondent are brothers and
sisters. Their father one Mr.S.L. Vydianathan was the absolute owner in
possession and enjoyment of Schedule property. The Appellants submit
that their father late. Mr.S.L.Vydinathan, who was an Assistant
Commissioner of Police had out of his own income acquired a property
bearing Site No. 5, (Plot No.C, formed out of the property bearing
Survey No.12/1 & 13 of Akkithemmenahalli Village), 1st Cross, Venson
Layout, Shnatinagar Civil Station, Bangalore measuring 66 feet X 62
feet +20 feet X 21 feet by way of an absolute sale Deed dt.10.12.1956
executed by one Mr. Mir Mohammed Ali Khan in his favour with the
same being registered as Document No.1956/56-57, Book-I, Volume

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
928, Pages 8 to 12, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore Civil

Station.
7. The Appellants submit that, father Mr. S.L. Vydianathan expired on

25.12.1964 and hence the Schedule Property and the Respondents and
Appellants are class I legal heirs under the provisions of Hindu
Suceession Act.
8. The Appellants submit that further on the demise of their mother

Smt.Sarvatimbal, the shares of the sons and daughter got enlarges. Thus
sll the sons and daughter of late.Mr.S.L. Vydinanthan thus came to
jointly owner of the Schedule property as tenants in common as each of
them are having equal undivided right, title and interest in the same.
9. The Appellants submit that when this being the factual situation
Mr.S.V.Sambanda Murthy was behaving indifferently in the year 2010-
2011 which constrained the Appellants to seek for partition of Schedule
property by meets and bounds and put them in exculsive possession of
the same with an enquiry on mense profits before the Hon’ble IX
Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-5).
10.The Appellants submit that, the Respondent No.1 contended that, the
Respondent No.4 executed Deed of Release on 27.01.1981 in his favour,
Hence to sought for dismissal of the suit.
11.The Appellants submit the the Hon’ble IX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bangalore(CCH.5), after conducting the trial in O.S.
No.6195/2011, dismissed the same suit on 05.03.2016. The Appellants
prefer this Regular First Appeal before this Hon’ble Court on the
following grounds in support of their prayer.
GROUNDS
12.The Appellants submits that, the Judgment and Decree passed by the
Learned Hon’ble IX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore
Dt:05.03.2016 is technically unsound, erroneous and passed without
consideration of facts and is contrary to law.
13.The Appellants submit that, the Respondents have not proved the Deed
of Release Dt.25.07.1981 in respect of Schedule Property by examining

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
any witness. The Hon’ble trial Court has ignored the basic fundamental
of the Evidence Act has caused mis-carriage of justice.
14.The Appellants submit that, has stated that the trail Court failed to
understand the case of the appellants in its rights perspective. And
Further the Respondents have at no point of time stated that the suit for
partition is not maintainable.
15.The Appellants submit that, the trail court has stated that, though there
is no issue frame on the ground of limitation, the Hon’ble trail Court has
stated the suit is barred by time. further no court can pass an Order
regarding limitation without any issue being framed in this regard. As
the issue of limitation being a mixed question of fact and law, the
Hon’ble Court ought to have framed an issue on the ground of limitation
and allow the parties to lead evidence on the same. By not doing so the
trial Court has committed an error of law. The suit being a suit for
Partition and the Appellants and Respondents being tenants in common
and the joint owners of the Schedule Property and no limitation is
provide under limitation Act to maintain a suit for Partition.
16.The Appellants submit that, the Schedule property being joint family
property until the and unless partition is effected by metes and bounds,
nobody can claim exclusive title to any property. Accordingly the
Appellants and Respondents are deemed to be in possession in law of
the Schedule Property.
17.The Appellants submit that, the trail court has conveniently ignored the
fatual issues put forth and has for reasons best known to it proceeded to
dismiss the suit of the Appellants. The said fact hence shows illegality in
the impugned judgment ought to be set aside.
18.The Appellants submit that, the orders of trail court is liable to be set
aside;
19.The Appellants submits that the Appeal is in time.
20.The Appellants submit that, the Appeal is against the Judgment and
Decree of the Hon’ble IX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore in O.S. No.6195/2011 which was for Partition, total value of
Schedule Property is eighty Lakhs. The Plaintiff’s share is of RS.Ten
Lakhs each i.e total share value is Twenty Lakhs. The Applicats had

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
paid Court fee of Rs.425/- under Section 35(2) Karnataka Court fee and
suit valuation Act., hence here valued this appeal.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Appellant above named humbly prays that this Hon’ble
Court be pleased to:
a. To allow the Appeal against the Order of the Hon’ble IX Additional City
Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in O.S. No.6195/2011 Dt:05.03.2016
and consequently decree the said suit for partition in respect of the
Schedule Property against the Respondents.
b. To call records in O.S. No.6195/2011 of the Hon’ble IX Additional City
Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
c. To grant such other reliefs /s. which this Hon’ble Court deems fir and
expedient in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice
and equity.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the immoveable property bearing New
Municipal No.23, No.23, “Sathya”, Shanti Road, Shanthinagar, Opp :
Morning Glory Road, Bangalore bearing Old Site No.5, (Plot No.C,
formed out of the property bearing Survey No.12/1 & 13 of
Akkithemmenahalli Village), 1st Cross, Venson Layout, Shnatinagar Civil
Station, Bangalore, measuring 66 ft X 62 Ft + 20 feet X 21 feet and
bounded on the
East by: Road,
West by: Private Property,
North by: Road,
South By : Private Property.
Place: Bangalore Advocate for Appellants

Date:

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
11. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL
Smt. Lakshmamma came to an advocate and enquired about the orders passed in
R.A. No.187/13 and the Advocate explained her that, the court has dismissed the
Regular Appeal and the same is not maintainable and he has to approach High
court of Karnataka and file Regular Second Appeal changeling the Orders passed
by the Lower Court. And advocate further explained that, they good grounds for
appeal against the Orders passed by the trail Court. Smt. Lakshmamma sort for the
help of the Advocate in filing RSA.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the RSA for Smt.
Lakshmamma.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
Memorandum of Regular Second Appeal Under Section 100 of the CPC

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM,
AT KOLAR
O.S.No.327/2009
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT KOLAR
R.A.No.187/2013
R.S.A. No. /2019
BETWEEN Rank of Parties

Trial L. Appellate High
Court Court Court
Smt. LAKSHMAMMA ↓ ↓ ↓
W/o. Sri. Muniyappa
Agriculturist
Residing at Thondale Village,
Holur Hobli, Kolar Taluk,
Kolar. PLAINTIFF APPELLANT APPELLANT
AND:
1. Sri. MUNIYAPPA
S/o. Sri. Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 80 years, DEF No. 1 RES No. 1 RES No.1
2. Sri. CHINNAPPA
S/o. Sri. Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 75 years, DEF No. 2 RES No. 2 RES No.2
Both are Agriculturists and

Residing at Thondala Village,
Holur Hobli, Kolar Taluk,
Kolar-563 101.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
1. This 2nd Appeal is preferred by the Appellant against the Order dt.10.08.2018
passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, at Kolar in Regular Appeal
No.187/2013. The copy of the Order dt.10.08.2018 is herewith produced as
ANNEXURE- 'A'.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

2. For the sake of convenience the Appellant who has been described as a
Plaintiff and the Respondents are described as Defendants.
3. The Plaintiff is the wife of Late Sri. Muniyappa i.e., the 1st Defendant. The 2nd
Defendant is the brother of the 1st Defendant and the Defendants 3 to 5 are
wives and daughter of the other brother of the 1st Defendant namely, Late.
Venkatappa.
4. The Schedule Properties are consisting of 6 items which are all self acquired
Properties of the Plaintiff being her Sthreedhana Properties which were
acquired by the Plaintiff through her mother's family and she was in
possession of the said Schedule Properties as absolute owner. The Khatas in
respect of the Schedule Properties have also been made and standing in the
name of the Plaintiff for the lands bearing Sy.Nos.48/2, 84/1, 140, 69/2, 82.
However, for the land bearing Sy.No.88, the khata is still in the name of her
Vendor Sri. B.T. Krishnappa, which was purchased by the Plaintiff for a
valuable sale consideration under a Registered Sale Deed dt.01.08.1990.
5. The Trial Court after looking into the pleading of the both the parties and
I.A. No.3 filed by the 5th Defendant and objections of the Plaintiff comes to
the wrong conclusion that, the matter in issue has been finally heard and
decided by the Court in O.S.No.26/1990 hence the present suit is not
maintainable under Section 11 of the CPC and under Order 7 Rule 11(d)
CPC statement in plaint to be barred by law, hence the plaint was rejected by
its Order dt.17.08.2013.
6. The Plaintiff being aggrieved by the said Order preferred Regular Appeal
before the Hon'ble 1st Additional District Judge at Kolar in R.A.
No.187/2013 filed by the Plaintiff Smt. Lakshmamma against the
Defendants Sri. Muniyappa and others. The Appellant Court without
considering the fact passed the Impugned Order in R.A.No.187/2013 on
10.08.2018. The Trial Court only based on the Affidavit filed alongwith the

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
Interlocutory Application dismissed the suit, hence unless and until the
opportunity is granted to Plaintiff to adduce the evidence to establish her
case, as, the Suit Schedule Properties are herself acquired properties and
Streedhana properties dismissed the suit. The Appellate Court also without
considering the arguments and without considering the fact, dismissed the
Appeal with costs and in consequence the Orders passed by the Trial Court
in O.S.No.327/2009 was confirmed. Aggrieved by the said Order of the
Appellate Court in R.A.No.187/2013 passed by the 1st Additional District
and Secession Judge, at Kolar on 10.08.2018 preferred this 2nd Appeal on
the following amongst other Grounds
GROUNDS:
9. The Judgment and Decree of the Lower Appellate Court in R.A. No.187/2013
as well as Orders passed by the Trial Court on I.A.No.3 rejecting the plaint
and consequent dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.327/2009 are contratory to
law, probabilities and facts of the case.
10. The Lower Appellate Court has filed to frame necessary point arising for
consideration and also failed to look into the Sale Deeds of the Plaintiff and
its sources, dismissed the Appeal and also consequently confirmed the Orders
of the Trial Court.
11. The Trial Court on the I.A.No.3 filed by the 5th Defendant, under Order VII
Rule 11 R/W Section 151 of CPC, framed the issue that, whether the Suit is
hit by Section 11 of CPC, res-judicata and same issue was framed by the
Appellate Court and consequently dismissed the suit and appeal without
considering the documents furnished and without giving an opportunity to
establish the case of the Plaintiff which are very much necessary and essential
to decide the issue.
11. The Lower Appellate Court has passed the strange Order. It has failed to note
that, the Suit Schedule Properties were purchased by the Plaintiff out of her
own fund and which are her Streedhana properties. As the said facts were not
properly pleaded in her earlier written statement and hence the same was
challenged in the Suit bearing O.S.No.327/2009 with all necessary document.
The Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court without giving Opportunity to the
Plaintiff dismissed the suit and appeal at the earliest stage.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set-aside the
judgment and decree dt.10.08.2018 passed in R.A.No.187/2013 on the file of the
1st Additional District Judge, at Kolar confirming the Judgment and Decree passed
by the 1 Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, at Kolar in O.S.No.327/2009 be
restored and this Regular 2nd Appeal be allowed as prayed for in the interest of
justice and equity.
VALUATION
The value of the subject matter of the suit is valued under Section 24 (h) of CF and
SV Act R/W Section 7 of Court Fee Act for Rs.114=50 and Court Fee of Rs.114/-
was paid in Trial Court under Section 7 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation
Act, 1958.
In the Lower Appellate Court the value of the subject matter of the suit was valued
at Rs.114/- for the purpose of judgment and Court fee was paid Rs.114/- under
Section 7 of KCF and SV Act.,, and PF as paid Higher Value of Rs.1,000/- i.e.,
Rs.25/-.
This Appeal is valued of Subject matter is Rs.114=50 and Court Fee of Rs.114/- is
paid under Section 49 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act., 1958.
Place: Bengaluru
Date: ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
12. PRIVATE COMPLAINT
The Advocate being the panel advocate for the bank, got an requirement
from the banker for filing private complaint against their customer as the
cheque issued by the customer is bounced and the customer has not paid the
loan amount, along with interest to the bank after obtaining the loan from the
bank. The Letter to an advocate was enclosed with details of amount, details
of customer and statement of loan account of the said customer, cheques and
banker endorsement .
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the PCR for the same.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
IN THE COURT OF THE..............ADDITIONAL CHIEF

METROPOLITION MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU
P.C.R. / 2020
CC.No. /202
The Aisiri Co-Operative Society Limited,

Registered Office at No.82,
1st Main, 1st Cross, Vysya Bank Colony,
BTM 2nd stage, Bangalore – 560 076
Rep by Smt. Jyothi Shetty
Second Division Clerk..................................................................COMPLAINANT
-V/s-
Mr. K.G. Ravindra,

S/o. K.I. Gopal,
Residing at 775, 36th F Cross,
4th T Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore – 560 041
Also At K.R Super Market,

#379, 10th Cross, 7th Main,
Balaji Layout, Vijarahalli,
Bangalore – 560 062
..........ACCUSED
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE R/W Sec 138 & 142 OF THE N.I. ACT 1988
In the above named Complainant respectfully submits as follows:-
1. The addresses of the parties for the purposes of Court Summons, Warrants,
Notices, etc., are as given in the above cause title and that of the Complainant,
its Counsel……………………………………………………..

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
2. The Complainant submits that, the Complainant is a Co-operative Society

Limited registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-Operative
Societies Act, 1959. The complainant is carrying on the Business by providing
financial assistance to the needy with due license from Authorities. The main
object of the complainant is to advance loans to its members for various
purposes. The Complainants society authorized Mr. Umanath Shetty to appear
before this Hon’ble court and for representation on behalf of its board
resolution and authorization are produced as DOCUMENT NO. 1 & 2.
3. The Complainant submits that, Accused became the member of the Society
under Membership No.601 and being the member of the society on
01.09.2017 Accused made an Application by furnishing surety for sanction
of loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- dated 01.09.2017 for improvement of his business.
The said application is herewith produced as DOCUMENT No. 3.
4. The Complainant submits that, after availing the said loan by Accused, the
Accused have become irregular towards maintaining the loan account and
thereby after adjusting all Accused payments there was a balance outstanding
of Rs.7,43,587/- due as on 31.08.2020. The Complainant inspite of informing
the Accused again and again the Accused have failed and neglected to pay the
EMI’s as promised.
5. The Complainant submits that, after several request made by the Complainant,
the Accused have issued the cheque bearing No. 011765, dt. 29.10.2020 for
Rs. 7,43,587/-, (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty Three Thousand and Five Eighty
Seven only), drawn on Bank of India, for repayment of the outstanding loan
amount and promise to honor the said cheque on its presentation to the bank.
Believing the promise made by the Accused, the Complainant presented the
above said cheque to Bank of Baroda, Bangalore. But to the surprise of the
Complainant the above said cheque was returned with shara “Account
Closed” vide Memo dt. 03.11.2020. The original Cheque and the copy of
the Return Memo are herewith produced as DOCUMENT No. 9 & 10
6. The Complainant further submits that, the Complainant issued the legal notice
to the Accused on 20.11.2020 calling upon the Accused to pay Rs. 7,43,587/-
,within Fifteen (15) Days from the date of receipt of said notice. Inspite of the
said notice the Accused failed to pay the said amount of Rs. 7,43,587/-. The

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
copy of the Legal Notice, 2 Postal Receipt, and 2 Postal Acknowledgement

herewith produced as DOCUMENT No. 11 to 13.
7. The cause of action for the offence took place at Bengaluru, where the
Complainant Bank namely Bank of Baroda is situated and wherein the
Complainant presented the above referred cheque within the jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble Court.
WHEREFORE, the Complainant respectfully prays that, this Hon’ble Court be

pleased to take cognizance of the above complaint and to punish the Accused under
Section 138 of N.I. Act for dishonor of the cheque stated supra in accordance with
law, and also to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deem just
and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT COMPLAINANT
VERIFICATION
I, Umanath Shetty, S/o T Ganapaiah Shetty, The Aisiri Co-Operative Society
Limited, President of the Complainant Society in the above case, do hereby
declare that, what is stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, belief and
information.
COMPLAINANT
Place: Bangalore
Date: 12.2020

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
13. BAIL PETITION
One Nagaraju approached an advocate stating that, a complaint is filed before

Nandini Layout Police station against Mr. Abhishek, who is his son. Further stated
that, Mr. Abhishek, is employer to work till 10.30 P.M. as it was urgent for him to
complete the project, he worked till 10.30 P.M. and when Mr. Abhishek was
returning from his work to home on 25.07.2019 and while returning to his home
Mr. Abhishek, met some of his friends on the street and was speaking to them and
Police misunderstood the situation and arrested Mr. Abhishek, and filed the false
case against the him and now Mr. Abhishek is in the judicial custody. Mr.Nagaraju
sort for the help of the Advocate to release his son Mr. Abhishek.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the bail Petition for the same

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

BANGALORE
Crl. Mis No. /2018
Cr. No. 280/2018
BETWEEN
Mr. Abhishek
S/o. Nagaraju,
# 36, 4th Cross,
Jaimaruthinagara, Nandhini Layout
Bangalore -560 096 ……PETITIONER
AND
State by Nandhini Layout P.S ……RESPONDENT
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE Cr.P.C., 1973
The Petitioner above named humbly submits as follows:-
1. It is submitted that, the address of the party/ies for the purposes of issuance
of notices, summons etc., by this Hon’ble Court is as shown in the cause title
above and that of Petitioner her Counsel ……………………….
2. The address of the Respondent for the aforesaid reasons is shown in the
cause title.
3. The Petitioner is a law- abiding citizen and is a permanent resident residing

at the above address.
4. The Petitioner is from the background of the poor and respectable family
working as Labourer he works under the house construction contractors for
daily wages.
5. As the Petitioner was requested by his employer to work till 10.30 P.M. as it
was urgent for him to complete the project, the Petitioner worked till 10.30

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
P.M. and the Petitioner was returning from his work to home on 25.07.2019
and while returning to his home he met some of his friends on the street and
was speaking to them and Police misunderstood the situation and arrested
the Petitioner and filed the false case against the Petitioner. .
6. The Petitioner after close and anxious enquires learnt that the Respondent
Police have registered a case under section 399 and 402 of IPC against the
Petitioner in Cr. 280/2019 and arrested the Petitioner and put him in the
lock-up in the night.
7. The Respondent Police took the Petitioner into their custody on 25.07.2019
and subsequently concocted false records and material objects and
subsequently the Petitioner was produced before the Magistrate on
26.07.2019 and he was remanded to judicial custody. The Respondent police
had not seized any material object and the Respondent police have created
material object to file false case on the Petitioner.
Under these facts and circumstances the Petitioner has approached this Hon’ble
Court seeking relief under the provisions of section 438 of Cr P C of the
following grounds.
GROUNDS
i. The Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence.
ii. The Police have registered a false case against the Petitioner.
iii. The offence alleged are non-bailable but not punishable with death or
life improsement.
iv. The name of the Petitioner has been falsely implicated by the
Complainant Police.
v. The Petitioner has got valid defence in support of his innocence.
vi. The Petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the Police during
investigation and to participate in the consequent trial.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
vii. In the event the Petitioner is arrested and detained, there will be
hazardous consequential since his work will be hampered and he may
thrown out of job and consequent starvation in addition to irreparable
loss to the Petitioner.
viii. The prestige and fair name in society of this Petitioner and his family
will be defamed and damaged.
ix. The Petitioner prays permission of this Hon’ble Court that, if any
additional grounds to urge in the bail application at the time of hearing
this bail application before this Hon’ble Court.
8. The Petitioner undertakes to furnish acceptable surety to ensure his

availability.
9. The Petitioner undertakes to abide by terms and conditions may be imposed

by this Hon’ble Court.
10.The Petitioner declares that no other Bail Application is pending in respect

of the Petitioner before this Hon’ble Court or in any other court.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE it is humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased
to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in connection with Cr.No.280/2019 filed by
Nandhini Layout Police Station, Bangalore Before 7 th Addl.CMM Court,
Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore upon such terms and conditions as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit to impose, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice.
Place: Bangalore ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

Date :

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
14. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(4) OF THE CODE

OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
One D.S.K. Murthy approached an advocate stating that, a PCR was filed one Mr.
Vijay Kumar for issue of cheque and further non-payment of the cheque amount
and hence he filed compliant before magistrate court and after trail unfortunately
The trial court dismissed his complaint and he want to approach High Court. And
sort for the help of the advocate in filing appeal before High Court and gave an
advocate copy of the Orders and other documents.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the Criminal Appeal for the
same.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNNTAKA AT BANGALORE
(MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 378(4)

OF THE CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE)
In The Court Of The XLII Addl.C.M.M At Bangalore
C.C No.18178/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNNTAKA AT BANGALORE
Criminal Appeal No. /2018
Rank in
Trial Court High Court

BETWEEN:
M/s. Sre Gaurav Chits (P) Ltd.,
No. 1/2, Gramadevatha Cross,
Chikka Mavalli,
Bangalore -560 004.
Rep by its Director

D.S.K. Murthy …… COMPLAINANT APPELLANT
AND
Mr. B.C. Vijay Kumar
Residing at No.15,
Yellappa Street,
Chikka Mavalli,
Bangalore-560 004 …ACCUSED RESPONDENT

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
The Appellant most respectfully submit as follows:
1. The Address of the Appellant for the purpose of issue of summons, notice
etc,. is as shown in the cause title above and that of his
counsel……………….
2. That the address of the Respondent is as shown in the cause title above.
3. The Petitioner preferred this Revision against the Judgment of the orders
of Acquittal by the XLII Addl.C.M.M at Bangalore in C.C.No.18178/2016
dated 7.01.2016, acquitting the Respondent for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the NI Act.
FACTS OF CASE
4. The Petitioner / Complainant is a registered chit Company under the

Company’s Act and is running chit business/transaction after obtaining the
due license from the Registrar of chits. The Petitioner / Complainant is
running number of chit Groups and the Accused/Respondent is one of the
subscriber of “Vasavi Chit Group” having face value of Rs.2,00,000/-
consisting of 20 installments and each installment amounting to
Rs.1,000/- payable by the each subscriber every month after deducting the
divided amount. The Accused/ Respondent was declared as successful
bidder of the 3rd Chit and the Accused received prize amount of
Rs.1,20,000/- through cheque; Accused/ Respondent while receiving prize
amount has agreed to pay further 17 installments regularly. While
accepting the prized amount the Accused/ Respondent has executed
necessary documents. Accused/ Respondent has paid 14 installments out
of 20 installments and he was liable to pay balance 6 installments with
interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 11.02.2014.
5. The Petitioner / Complainant similarly running “Varalaximi -3 chit Group

having face value of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the each subscriber every
month after deducting the divided amount. The wife of the Accused
namely Chandrika was the subscriber of the said chit and was declared as
successful bidder of 3rd chit and she has received an amount of
Rs.85,000/- through cheque. The wife of the Accused while receiving the
chit amount along with the accused, she also executed necessary

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
documents and agreed to pay future 17 monthly installments and she had
paid 11 installments out of 20 installments and was liable to pay balance 9
monthly installments with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum.
6. The Petitioner / Complainant being aggrieved by the Judgment dated

07/02/2018 passed in C.C. No. 18178/2018, by the learned XLII th Addl.
C.M.M. at Bangalore, invoked the Petitioner Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble
Court to set aside the order of acquittal and hence the Petitioner /
Complainant preferred this Revision on the following among other
grounds:
GROUNDS
7. The learned Trial Court has not applied its mind properly and utilized its
powers discriminately while pronouncing the Judgment.
8. The learned Trial Court passed the impugned Judgment which is

opposed to law and material on record. Therefore, the order of the Trial
Court is liable to be set aside.
9. The Trial Court considered only the cross examination of the PW1 made
by the Respondent/Accused side and failed to consider the evidence led
by the Petitioner / Complainant who is examined himself as PW-1
10. The Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence adduced by Petitioner /
Complainant and documents marked by him but comes to the wrong
conclusion that complaint filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant is wrong and
acquitted the Accused/ Respondent. It is the burden shifted by the Petitioner /
Complainant on to the Respondent/ Accused to show that he has paid the chit
amounts, the Accused was due to the complainant, cheque was issued for due
discharge of the legal liabilty. The Trial Court without considering this aspect
passed the impugned judgment.
11. The Trial Court also erred in appreciating the fact that the Respondent
/Accused has not disputed the issuance of the cheque and signature on the said
cheque. Further never disputed the legally recoverable debt.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
12. The Trial Court also erred in appreciating the fact that the Respondent/ Accused
has not disputed the alleged chit transactions with the Petitioner/ Complainant
13. Even though the Trial Court failed to take stand of presumption that the cheque
has been issued for the due discharge in whole or in part or any debt or other
liability. Even though the Accused/ Respondent failed to show that he paid the
said chit amount due to the Petitioner/ Complainant, passed the impugned
Orders without considering the disputed cheque for due discharge of legal
liability.
14. The Judgment passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and against to the law,
evidence, documents and probabilities, hence it is liable to be set aside.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, most respectfully prays that, this Hon’ble
Court be pleased
a. To set aside the Judgment passed in C.C.No. 18178/2016 dt.01.02.2016
by the XLII Addl.C.M.M, Court at Bangalore and to punish the
Accused U/Sec 138 of NI Act.
b. Call for records from the Hon’ble XLII Addl.C.M.M, Court at
Bangalore
c. To pass any such other relief/ reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems just
and proper in the above case in the interest of justice and equity.
Place Bangalore Advocate for Petitioner

Date .

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
15. WRIT PETITION
Mr. Mukesh Kumar is a deadthrow convict in Nirbhaya’s case which relates to the
gangrape of the victim in the moving bus in Delhi on the night of 16.12.2012. The
trial court convicted the Mr. Mukesh Kumar and other co-accused by judgment
dated 13.09.2013. The High Court confirmed the death sentence by its judgment
dated 13.03.2014 and the Supreme Court confirmed the same vide judgment dated
05.05.2017. That within 24 hours of petitioner’s mercy petition, on 15.01.2020, the
Deputy Chief Minister announced that the Government has recommended the
rejection of the mercy petition of the Mr. Mukesh Kumar and sent it to the
Lieutenant Governor. The petitioner’s mercy petition was rejected by respondent
No.1 – Lieutenant Governor on 15.01.2020. On 16.01.2020, respondent No.2-NCT
of Delhi has recommended the rejection of petitioner’s mercy petition and the
same was forwarded to the President of India. Mr. Mukesh Kumar’s mercy petition
was rejected by the President of India on 17.01.2020. Pursuant to the rejection of
his mercy petition, learned Sessions Judge on 17.01.2020 issued a fresh execution
warrant directing the petitioner to be executed on 01.02.2020. Since the petitioner
did not possess any documents pertaining to the consideration of his mercy
petition, on 17.01.2020, petitioner through his lawyer moved the application before
the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, Secretary Home Department, Government of NCT
and Secretary Home Department, UOI requesting for all documents pertaining to
his mercy petition and sort for the help of an advocate in filing writ of Mandamus
before Supreme Court.
Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft writ Petition to be field before
Supreme Court.

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.......................OF 20
IN THE MATTER OF
MUKESH KUMAR.......................................................PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS..........................RESPONDENTS
PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
To,
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS LORDSHIP'S

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWED THIS UNDER,
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
1. At Delhi on 16th December, 2012 in evening the twenty-three year old lady, a
para-medical student, who had gone with her friend to watch a film at PVR
Select City Walk Mall, Saket, was gradually stepping in along with her friend,
would get into a bus at Munirka bus stand to be dropped at a particular place; a
gang of six, face brutal assault and become a playful thing as she was raped by
six, one after the other. Subsequent to all exhausting all remedies under law the
present mercy petition.
2. QUESTION OF LAW :-
It is stated that the guidelines “Procedure Regarding Petitions for Mercy

in Death Sentence Cases” issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India have been mentioned and the said seven point

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
guidelines are called “Guidelines for Dealing with Mercy Petitions”, read
as under:-
i. Personality of the convict (such as age, sex or mental deficiency).
ii. Has the appellate court express doubt on the reliability of evidence
but has nevertheless decided on conviction.
iii. Is it alleged that fresh evidence is obtainable, mainly with a view to

seeing whether a fresh inquiry is justified.
iv. Has the Court, on appeal, enhanced the sentence.
v. Is there any difference of opinion in the Bench of High Court judges

necessitating reference to a third judge.
vi. Was the evidence duly considered in fixing responsibility, if it was a

gang murder case.
vii. Were there long delays in the investigation and the trial.
3. GROUNDS:-
i. Relevant materials were not placed before the President of India and
they were kept out of consideration while considering the mercy
petition;
ii. The mercy petition was rejected swiftly and there was pre-determined
stance and complete non-application of mind in rejection of the mercy
petition;
iii. Solitary confinement of the Petitioner for more than one and half
years due to which the petitioner has developed severe psychiatric
ailments;
iv. Non-consideration of relevant circumstances like prisoners’ suffering

in the prison and consideration of extraneous and irrelevant
circumstances; and

lOMoARcPSD|19991145
v. Non-observance of established rules and guidelines in considering the

petitioner’s mercy petition.
vi. whereas quick consideration of the mercy petition and rejection of the
same can be a ground for judicial review of the order of the President
under Article 72 of the Constitution it suggest that there was pre-
determined mind and non-application of mind;
vii. The orders passed by the President with respect to the mercy Petition
filed by petitioner is mala fide; The order has been passed on
extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations; that the order suffers
from arbitrariness.
viii. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondents have rejected the
petitioner’s mercy petition without any application of mind on account of
extraneous considerations which is wholly unsustainable in law
4. No pending petitions in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on

the subject matter of the present petition.
5. PRAYER
In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to the

Respondent to allow the mercy petition filed by the Petitioner in the
above case.
(ii) To pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) To award the cost of the Petition in favour of the Petitioner.
Advocate for Petitioner

Date:
Place:

DPC 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DPC 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|19991145

Drafting Pleading & Conveyancing (Karnataka State Law University)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

SL.No. PARTICULARS PAGE MARKS

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

1. INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FOR UNDER CONDONATION

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Mr. K.V. Ramakrishna, S/o,

3. The United Indian Insurance Co- Ltd,

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, for

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Mr. K.V. Ramakrishna.....................................APPELLANT

I , …………………..S/o. Late, …………………..Aged about ……. years Advocate,

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE MAYOHALL

CAVEATE PETITION No. /2021

Mr. Rajesh G. Aged

Rep.by his GPA Holder

MEMORANDUM OF PETITION UNDER SECTION 148-A OF THE CODE

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

also issued the Khatha Certificate dt.26.09.2008 in favour of the Caveator.

WHEREFORE, the Caveator prays that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

East By :Site No.639;

Advocate for Caveator CAVEATOR

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

3. PETITION UNDER RENT ACT.

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPLE JUDGE OF SMALL CAUSES AT

PETITIONER :- Smt. Pushpamma

MEMORANDUM OF PETITION UNDER SECTION 27(2) (a) (q) OF THE

2. The Petitioner is an absolute owner of the entire property bearing No.6/52, 1 st

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

WHEREFORE, the Petitioner prays that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to :

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

Opinion: Advocate suggested to file Consumer Compliant against Viswapriya

Question: Place yourself as an Advocate and draft the consumer petition.

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

BEFORE THE CENTRAL AUTHORITY CONSUMER DISPUTES AT

2. Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd.,

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

convertable Debentures of Rs.1,000/- each under Bond Folio

3. The Complainant further submits that, the Complainant being a Senior

The Complainant is residing at Bangalore and Opposite Party No.2 is having

WHEREFORE, the Complainant respectfully prays that, this Hon’ble Forum be

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

(c) To Pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and unnecessary

(d) To Pay the cost of this proceedings.

ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANTS COMPLAINANTS

Ms. Prabha Shekar, the above named Complainant do hereby solemnly

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

5. MATRIMONIAL CASE FOR DIVORCE

Downloaded by Aghilan HB19 009 (aghilan.hb19009@gmail.com)

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU

MC. No.................../ 2020

Mr. H.S. Suresh,

Smt. A.S. Savitha,