Sri K N Ramesh v. Sri K N Druvakumar S/O Late K Narasimhaiah

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026RFA/718/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Regular First Appeal – partition and separate possession – proof of Will – Section 68 Indian Evidence Act – attesting witnesses not examined – propounder's heavy burden in partition suits – I.A. withdrawn as not pressed – daughter cannot substitute attesting witness – no appellate-stage indulgence – Section 8 Hindu Succession Act – Class-I heirs – 1/3 share each – preliminary decree upheld – appeal dismissed. Bench: Sachin Shankar Magadum J (Single Judge), High Court of Karnataka. Useful on: consequences of failing to examine attesting witnesses under Section 68; futility of curing evidentiary lacunae in Will-proof at the appellate stage.

What did the court decide?

None — the appeal is dismissed; pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. ¶¶135

Sri K N Ramesh Vs Sri K N Druvakumar S/O Late K… — Succession and Inheritance | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the appeal is dismissed; pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

¶¶135

Issue for consideration

Whether the finding of the Trial Court on Issue Nos.4 and 5 — that defendant No.2 failed to establish the due execution and attestation of the Will in compliance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and consequently that the Will is not proved — suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. +1 more

¶¶79

Court's answer

In a suit for partition, when one among the siblings sets up a testamentary disposition to exclude the natural line of succession, the burden lies heavily upon the propounder to prove the Will strictly in accordance with law.

¶¶114

Ratio / Principle

The mandatory requirement under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act necessitates examination of at least one attesting witness to prove execution, provided such witness is alive and capable of giving evidence; both attesting witnesses were admittedly alive during the suit yet defendant No.2 examined neither, and in the absence of such statutory compliance the Court need not even enter upon an enquiry into suspicious circumstances — failure to prove due execution itself is fatal.

¶¶119

Key takeaways

The conduct of defendant No.2 — withdrawing I.A.No.9 as 'not pressed' despite seeking summons to attesting witness Sri M. Krishna Rao, coupled with repeated adjournments and failure to secure either attesting witness while they were alive — unmistakably demonstrates reluctance rather than inability.ratio¶¶112
The appellate stage cannot be converted into a forum to remedy deliberate omissions or negligent prosecution of the defence; with both attesting witnesses now deceased and in light of the lack of diligence at trial, no indulgence can be granted at the appellate stage — the omission is substantive, striking at the root of proof.ratio¶¶106

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Partition appeal between siblings over the self-acquired property of late K. Narasimhaiah. Defendant No.2 (appellant) resisted plaintiff No.1's claim by setting up a registered Will dated 10.01.1985 (Ex.D.26) creating a life interest in favour of the mother Smt.C.K.Ammajamma with absolute devolution on himself. Neither attesting witness — Dr. Lakshmidevi or Sri M. Krishna Rao — was examined at trial although both were alive; the application of 26.06.2009 to examine an attesting witness went nowhere through repeated adjournments, I.A.No.9 for summons to Sri M. Krishna Rao was withdrawn as 'not pressed' on 23.10.2010, and a belated bid to examine Dr. Lakshmidevi's daughter Kumari Lalitha was rightly rejected, a daughter's examination being no substitute for an attesting witness. An affidavit of Sri M. Krishna Rao surfaced at the appellate stage, by which time he had died. Holding that Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act mandatorily requires examination of at least one living, capable attesting witness; that failure of due execution is itself fatal, obviating any suspicious-circumstances enquiry; and that the appellate stage cannot cure deliberate trial omissions, the Court found the Trial Court's answers on Issue Nos.4 and 5 sound and free from perversity. With the Will unproved, succession opened under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, entitling plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.1 and 2 to 1/3 share each; the preliminary decree dated 04.02.2011 granting plaintiff No.1 a 1/3 share in the 'A' schedule property was upheld. Appeal and pending applications dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.718 OF 2011 (PAR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.K.N.RAMESH S/O LATE K.NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.772, 7^TH 'B' MAIN 5^TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR B.K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.T.INDU SHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI.K.N.DRUVAKUMAR S/O LATE K.NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶15

SMT.H.GAYATHRI W/O K.N.DRUVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶16

D.SHOBHA D/O K.N.DRUVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶17

D.SHIVARAJ S/O K.N.DRUVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS

¶18

RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.81

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

1^ST FLOOR (VYSHNAVI MARKETING SERVICE)

¶23

3^RD CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR 80 FEET ROAD, CHANDRALAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 072

¶24

SMT.K.N MANJULA DEVI D/O LATE K.NARASIMHAIAH W/O M.N.DAMODARA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2020 1^ST MAIN, 12^TH CROSS RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 040

¶25

SRI.S.G.GARAGAM MAJOR RESIDING AT OUT HOUSE NO.772 17^TH 'B' MAIN, 5^TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010

¶26

M.M.PAPER MART

¶27

GIRIJESHWAR MAJOR

¶28

BHUPAL RAO MAJOR

¶29

V.SAROJA NAIDU MAJOR

¶30

SRI.VENKATESHWARA CHATS

¶31

RESPONDENT NOS.7 TO 11 ARE AT NO.772, 17^TH 'B' MAIN 5^TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶32

L.N.DAGA MAJOR

¶33

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

SANJAY MAJOR

¶37

RESPONDENT NOS.12 AND 13 ARE RESIDING AT NO.772, 17^TH 'B' MAIN 5^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010

¶38

…RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI.NANDGOPAL B, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.1 TO C/R.4; SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 TO R.4; SRI.G.S.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G.S.SRIKANTESHWARAN ASSOCIATES FOR R.5; NOTICE TO R.6 TO R.13 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O/D 24.08.2012)

¶40

THIS RFA IS FILED U/O-41, RULE-1, R/W SEC.96 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.02.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.968/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-44, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR THE PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

¶41

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

The captioned appeal is filed by defendant No.2 assailing the preliminary decree dated 04.02.2011 drawn in O.S.No.968/2003, wherein plaintiff No.1 is awarded 1/3^rd share in 'A' schedule property by metes and bounds.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to

¶49

as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶50

The genealogical tree of the family reads as

¶51

under;

¶52

K NARASIMHAIAH (DECEASED 27.6.90)
CK AMMAJAMMA (DECEASED 27.11.2002)
K N MANJULA DEVI K N DRUVA KUMAR K N RAMESH
(R5 - D1) (R1 - P1) (APPELLANT - D2)
H GAYATHRI (WIFE)
(R2 - P2)
SOBHA D SHIVARAJ
(R3 - P3) (R4 - P4)
Respondents 6 to 13 are tenants

¶53

Plaintiff No.1, the son of late K. Narasimhaiah and

¶54

elder brother of defendant No.2, along with his wife and children, instituted the present suit for partition and separate possession. It is his specific case that his father, late K.Narasimhaiah, acquired the suit ‘A’ schedule property in the year 1963. Thereafter, he constructed a residential house consisting of a ground floor in the year

¶55

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

1967 and added a first floor during 1978–1979. It is

¶58

further pleaded that the father also constructed

¶59

commercial shops in the very same property and inducted defendant Nos.6 to 10 as tenants therein.

¶60

The plaintiffs contend that upon the demise of their father, and subsequently their mother in the year 2002, plaintiff No.1 sought division and separate possession of his legitimate share in the suit schedule property. However, despite repeated demands and requests, defendant Nos.1 and 2 allegedly failed to co-operate for an amicable partition, thereby constraining the plaintiffs to institute the present suit.

¶61

Defendant No.1, the eldest daughter of late K.Narasimhaiah and sister of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2, filed her written statement. Defendant No.2, however, filed a separate written statement asserting absolute title over the suit ‘A’ schedule property. His defence is founded on a registered Will dated 10.01.1985,

¶62

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

allegedly executed by his father, late K. Narasimhaiah. It is his specific contention that under the said Will, a life interest was created in favour of his mother, Smt.C.K.Ammajamma, and upon her demise, the property was to devolve absolutely upon him.

¶66

In light of the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues for adjudication. Issue Nos.4 and 5 were specifically framed placing the burden upon defendant No.2 to prove the due execution and validity of the alleged Will and the consequential claim of exclusive title.

¶67

In support of their claim, the plaintiffs adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and produced in all twenty documents. Defendant No.2, while relying upon the alleged Will marked as Ex.D.26 to substantiate the testamentary disposition, did not examine any of the

¶68

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

attesting witnesses to the Will nor led independent

¶72

evidence to establish its due execution and attestation.

¶73

The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, answered Issue Nos.4 and 5 in the negative, holding that defendant No.2 had failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act in proving the Will. Observing that no attesting witness was examined despite opportunity, the Trial Court concluded that the Will was not proved in accordance with law and consequently decreed the suit by granting 1/3^rd share to Plaintiff No.1.

¶74

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.2 has preferred the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, an attempt is made to produce an affidavit purportedly sworn by one M. Krishna Rao, stated to be an attesting witness to the alleged Will, in an effort to cure the evidentiary lacuna.

¶75

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Heard the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.2, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, and the learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1. The records of the Trial Court have been carefully perused.

¶78

The following points arise for consideration in this appeal:

¶79

(i) Whether the finding of the Trial Court on Issue Nos.4 and 5, holding that defendant No.2 failed to establish the due execution and attestation of the Will in compliance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and consequently concluding that the Will is not proved, suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court?

¶80

(ii) What order?

¶81

Findings on Point No.(i):-

¶82

Though defendant No.2 stoutly contested the suit and sought to non-suit his elder brother–plaintiff No.1

¶83

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

by setting up a testamentary disposition allegedly executed by late K. Narasimhaiah, the conduct of defendant No.2 in proving the said Will is wholly inconsistent with the seriousness required in law. Admittedly, the Will (Ex.D.26) is shown to have been attested by two witnesses, namely Dr. Lakshmidevi and Sri M. Krishna Rao. However, despite having produced the Will on record and having full knowledge that the burden squarely rested upon him to prove its due execution and attestation in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, defendant No.2 did not choose to examine either of the attesting witnesses during the course of trial.

¶87

The order sheet reveals a consistent pattern of reluctance and lack of diligence. Though an application was filed as early as 26.06.2009 seeking to examine an attesting witness, defendant No.2 went on seeking adjournments without taking effective steps to secure their presence. Even when sufficient opportunities were granted by the Trial Court, no attesting witness was examined.

¶88

10 -

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

Ultimately, the Trial Court, finding no further evidence forthcoming, closed the evidence of defendant No.2.

¶92

Curiously, when the matter was posted for final arguments, defendant No.2 filed an application stating that one of the attesting witnesses, Dr.Lakshmidevi, had suffered a paralytic stroke and sought permission to examine her daughter, Kumari Lalitha. The said application was rightly rejected, as examination of a daughter cannot substitute the mandatory requirement of examining an attesting witness to prove the Will.

¶93

The record further discloses that defendant No.2 had filed I.A. No.9 seeking issuance of summons to the other attesting witness, Sri M. Krishna Rao. However, on 23.10.2010, defendant No.2 consciously sought dismissal of the said application as “not pressed.” The order sheet unmistakably indicates that despite being afforded repeated adjournments on 31.07.2010, 12.08.2010 and 07.09.2010 to take steps for service of summons by way

¶94

11 -

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

of hand summons, defendant No.2 failed to act with due

¶98

diligence.

¶99

Thus, it is not a case where the attesting witnesses were unavailable or beyond reach. On the contrary, both attesting witnesses were alive at the time when the Will was set up as a defence in the pending suit. Defendant No.2 had the opportunity, the means, and the procedural liberty to secure their examination. Yet, he consciously chose not to press the application for issuance of summons and allowed the evidence to be closed.

¶100

Even thereafter, at the stage when the matter was about to be reserved for judgment, an attempt was made to reopen the evidence and examine Kumari Lalitha, the daughter of Dr.Lakshmidevi. This belated attempt clearly reflects an afterthought to fill up lacunae rather than a bona fide effort to comply with statutory requirements. The Trial Court, therefore, rightly rejected the said application.

¶101

12 -

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

In the present appeal, an affidavit purportedly

¶105

sworn by the attesting witness Sri M. Krishna Rao was produced in the year 2011 in an attempt to cure the fatal defect in proof. Learned counsel for the appellant sought adjournment to secure the presence of the said attesting witness, who was stated to be residing at Chennai. However, today it is fairly submitted that the said attesting witness has also passed away two years ago.

¶106

This subsequent development only fortifies the conclusion that defendant No.2 squandered the opportunity available during trial. The appellate stage cannot be converted into a forum to remedy deliberate omissions or negligent prosecution of defence.

¶107

On an overall appreciation of the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that conduct of defendant No.2 reflects certain degree of laxness and

¶108

lacking in bona fides in proving the Will. The conduct of withdrawing I.A. No.9 as “not pressed,” despite seeking

¶109

13 -

¶110

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

summons to Sri M. Krishna Rao, coupled with repeated adjournments and failure to secure either of the attesting witnesses when they were alive, unmistakably demonstrates reluctance rather than inability.

¶113

The dispute is inter se between siblings. Significantly, defendant No.1—the sister has not supported defendant No.2’s plea of exclusive entitlement under the alleged Will. Though she is stated to be a beneficiary under the testamentary arrangement and the Will purportedly casts an obligation upon the widow to pay Rs.1,000/-, she has specifically denied receipt of such amount on behalf of her son who was pursuing education. This further casts doubt on the genuineness of the alleged arrangement.

¶114

In a suit for partition, when one among the siblings sets up a testamentary disposition to exclude the natural line of succession, the burden lies heavily upon such propounder to prove the Will strictly in accordance

¶115

14 -

¶116

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

with law. The mandatory requirement under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act necessitates examination of at least one attesting witness to prove execution, provided such witness is alive and capable of giving evidence.

¶119

In the present case, both attesting witnesses were admittedly alive during the pendency of the suit. Yet, defendant No.2 failed to examine either of them. In the absence of such statutory compliance, the Court need not even enter upon an enquiry into suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. Failure to prove due execution itself is fatal.

¶120

Now that both attesting witnesses are no more, and in light of the clear lack of diligence exhibited by defendant No.2 during trial, the question of granting any indulgence at the appellate stage does not arise. The omission is not procedural but substantive, striking at the root of proof.

¶121

15 -

¶122

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

Plaintiff No.1 has instituted the suit asserting inheritance upon the demise of his father. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property was the selfacquired property of late K. Narasimhaiah. In the absence of a duly proved Will, succession opens under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, and all Class-I heirs—namely plaintiff No.1 and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to equal shares.

¶125

In the absence of proof of the testamentary arrangement, each of them is entitled to 1/3^rd share. The Trial Court, having rightly held that the Will was not proved in accordance with law and having consequently decreed the suit granting 1/3rd share to plaintiff No.1, has committed no error.

¶126

Upon independent re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence, this Court finds that the findings recorded by the Trial Court are sound, legally

¶127

NC: 2026:KHC:8262 RFA No. 718 of 2011

¶128

16 -

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

sustainable, and free from perversity. Accordingly, point

¶131

No.(i) is answered in the “ Negative.”

¶132

Point No.(ii) :- For the foregoing reasons, this

¶133

Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶134

ORDER

¶135

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

¶136

(ii) Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

¶137

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶138

NBM

¶139

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and preliminary decree dated 04.02.2011 in O.S.No.968/2003 partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession, awarding plaintiff No.1 a 1/3 share in the 'A' schedule property by metes and bounds.¶¶40
XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-44, Bangalore (Trial Court) · 04.02.2011
Prior proceeding
Plaintiff No.1 (son of late K. Narasimhaiah and elder brother of defendant No.2), along with his wife and children, instituted a suit for partition and separate possession.¶¶53
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs pleaded that the father acquired the 'A' schedule property in 1963, built the ground-floor house in 1967, added a first floor in 1978–1979, and constructed commercial shops inducting defendant Nos.6 to 10 as tenants.¶¶54
Prior proceeding
After the deaths of the father and of the mother in 2002, plaintiff No.1 demanded division; defendants Nos.1 and 2 allegedly failed to cooperate in an amicable partition.¶¶60
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.1 (eldest sister) filed a written statement; defendant No.2 filed a separate written statement asserting absolute title under a registered Will dated 10.01.1985 allegedly executed by the father, creating a life interest in the mother Smt.C.K.Ammajamma with absolute devolution on defendant No.2.¶¶65
Prior proceeding
The Trial Court framed Issue Nos.4 and 5, placing the burden on defendant No.2 to prove the due execution and validity of the alleged Will and his claim of exclusive title.¶¶66
Prior proceeding
At trial, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and produced twenty documents; defendant No.2 relied on the Will marked Ex.D.26 but examined none of the attesting witnesses and led no independent evidence of execution or attestation.¶¶67
Prior proceeding
Despite an application filed on 26.06.2009 to examine an attesting witness, defendant No.2 repeatedly sought adjournments without taking effective steps to secure the witnesses' presence.¶¶87
Prior proceeding
The Trial Court closed defendant No.2's evidence, finding no further evidence forthcoming.¶¶91
Prior proceeding
At final arguments, defendant No.2 stated attesting witness Dr.Lakshmidevi had suffered a paralytic stroke and sought to examine her daughter Kumari Lalitha; the Trial Court rightly rejected the application.¶¶92
Prior proceeding
Defendant No.2 had filed I.A.No.9 for issuance of summons to the other attesting witness, Sri M. Krishna Rao, but on 23.10.2010 consciously sought its dismissal as 'not pressed'.¶¶93
Prior proceeding
Despite adjournments granted on 31.07.2010, 12.08.2010 and 07.09.2010 to take steps for service of summons by hand summons, defendant No.2 failed to act with due diligence.¶¶93
Prior proceeding
The Trial Court answered Issue Nos.4 and 5 in the negative, holding defendant No.2 failed to comply with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, and decreed the suit granting plaintiff No.1 a 1/3 share.¶¶73
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved, defendant No.2 preferred the present appeal; during its pendency an attempt was made to produce an affidavit purportedly sworn by attesting witness M. Krishna Rao to cure the evidentiary lacuna.¶¶74
Prior proceeding
In the appeal, an affidavit of attesting witness Sri M. Krishna Rao was produced in 2011 attempting to cure the fatal defect in proof; counsel sought adjournment to secure his presence from Chennai.¶¶105
Prior proceeding
At the hearing it was fairly submitted that the said attesting witness had passed away two years earlier.¶¶105

Sri K N Ramesh v. Sri K N Druvakumar S/O Late K Narasimhaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K N Ramesh v. Sri K N Druvakumar S/O Late K Narasimhaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Haseena Banu @ Hseena Begum Vs Smt. Asmathunnisa

Sri Govindaraju K H Vs Sri H Giriyanna

Sri. P. Kishore Vs the Grain Merchants Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Smt D Muniyamma Vs Smt Rathnamma

Sri. Shridhar Rao Bavale Vs Sri Mahadev Rao Bavale

Smt Kamalamma Vs Mohan Kumar B S