1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1086/2011 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. C.V.YOGENDRANATH S/O LATE SRI. VEERAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1. SMT. C.Y.KAMALA W/O LATE SRI. C.V.YOGENDRANATH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.24/1, YELEPETE SOMWARPET ROAD, MAHADEVPET MADIKERI-571201. 2. SMT. SEEMA RAMESH W/O SRI. K.RAMESH D/O LATE SRI. C.V.YOGENDRANATH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.30/1, YOGA NILAYA 4TH CROSS, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE 4TH BLOCK, MALAGALA MAIN ROAD BEHIND SBI, BENGALURU-560091. 3. SMT. SONA C.Y. W/O SRI. JAYDEV B.S., D/O LATE C.V. YOGENDRANATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT SOMWARPET ROAD MAHADEVPET IND. ELF GAS GODOWN MADIKERI-571201. 2 4. SMT. C.Y.NITHYA W/O SRI. PRASHANTH D/O LATE C.V.YOGENDRANATH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.24/199, OPP. ELF GAS GODOWN MAHADEVPET, MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT-571201. (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 26.02.2024) … APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.B.NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B.SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . SMT. H. INDRAMMANI W/O SRI. H.S. MAHESH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.349, 10TH "B" MAIN NANDAGOKULA, I FLOOR JAYANAGAR III BLOCK BANGALORE-560011. 2 . SMT. GOWRAMMANNI W/O LATE MAHADEVARAJA WODEYAR MAJOR, R/AT NO.137, 10TH MAIN, KUVEMPU NAGAR KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD MYSORE-570001. 3 . SRI. MAHADESHWARA S/O LATE MAHADEVARAJA WODEYAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT SNEHA NILAYA NO.156, EGF BLOCK KUVEMPU NAGARA MYSORE-570001. 3 4 . SMT. SHARADAMMANNI D/O LATE MAHADEVARAJA WODEYAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.137, 10TH MAIN KAMAKSHI HOSPITAL ROAD KUVEMPU NAGARA MYSORE-570001. 5 . SMT. SUNDARAMMANNI D/O LATE MAHADEVARAJA WODEYAR SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS 5(a) SRI. M.D.DEVARAJU S/O LATE SRI. M.B.DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 5(b) SRI. M.D.MANJESH S/O LATE M.D.DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 5(c) SRI. M.D.MANOHAR S/O SRI. M.D.DEVARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.9, AYODHYA NAGAR SHIVARAMAPURA 2ND STAGE, MYSORE. (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.12.2016) 6 . SRI. G.T.RAGHAVENDRA S/O LATE G.S.THIMMAPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT "DWARAKA" JUNIOR COLLEGE ROAD MADIKERI-571201. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. B.S.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SRIHARSHA R. LONDHE, ADVOCATE FOR R6; 4 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.08.2013 NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT; R2, R3, R4, R5(a) – SERVED; R5(b) – SERVED, VIDE ORDER DATED 03.11.2016, NOTICE TO R5(c) IS HELD SUFFICENT) THIS R.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2011 PASSED IN O.S.NO.47/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MADIKERI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, PARTITION SEPARATE POSSESSION AND MESNE PROFITS. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 31.01.2025 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CAV JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff before the Trial Court is that she is having 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties and sought other relief of mesne profits and also the relief of declaration that sale deed dated 25.08.2000 alleged to have been executed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 is not binding on the 5 plaintiff and the same is a sham document and not supported by any valid consideration and tainted with fraud. While seeking such relief, it is contended that plaintiff, defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are daughters and son and defendant No.1 is the wife of late Mahadevaraja Wodeyar, who are all the members of Joint Hindu Family, who have inherited large extent of lands in Appangala Heravanadu Village, which formerly belonged to the family of erstwhile Raja of Kodagu District. The suit schedule properties formerly belonged to the great grand-father of the plaintiff by name late Sadashivaraja and these properties were being enjoyed by plaintiff’s father and his two brothers by name Basavaraja Wodeyar and Lingaraja Wodeyar and late Smt.Parvathammaji and under registered partition deed dated 11.01.1954, they divided all their family properties by metes and bounds and started enjoying the same separately and under registered partition deed, her father was allotted 65 acres of Jamma bane land in Sy.No.1/1 which is known as Kumbara Hadlu Estate and another 14.41 acres of land in Sy.No.82 which is known as Atti Hadlu of Heravanadu Village, among other properties, which are described in the suit schedule hereto, and 6 after the said partition, herself, her father and defendant Nos.1 to 4 were in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and other properties. Mahadevaraja Wodeyar died on 27.05.1978 intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 as his sole legal heirs and the defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4 and plaintiff each are entitled to 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties held by late Mahadevaraja Wodeyar and the defendant No.2 is entitled for 3/5th share in the properties held by her father and in respect of the properties held by her father, under the registered partnership deed pooled the property of 50 acres on 25.03.1970 to manage and cultivate the said property by taking one Dr. B.K. Nanjundeshwara and others as partners under the name and style ‘Kumbara Hadlu Estate’. 3. It is also contended that the said Dr.B.K.Nanjundeshwara on the same day entered into lease agreement for a period of 50 years and her father died on 27.05.1978 and Dr. B.K. Nanjundeshwara died in the year 1983, thereafter, there was litigation filed by the legal heirs of Dr. B.K. Nanjundeshwara before this Court in O.S.No.58/85 and 7 O.S.No.31/84 on the file of Prl. Munsiff, Madikeri which were dismissed and subsequently, Kumbara Hadlu Estate partnership firm was reconstituted among the legal heirs of Mahadevaraja Wodeyar, Dr. B.K. Nanjundeshwara and others, and the said partnership was reconstituted by inducting new partners, and also retiring the old partners on 13.12.1989, 13.07.1990 and 14.09.1990 under the registered partnership deed firm which was reconstituted on 13.09.1990, the defendant No.5 became the Managing Partner of the firm and one K.S. Uthappa and K.S. Narayana, who were partners of the firm filed a suit challenging the constitution of the firm and reconstitution in O.S.No.102/90 on the file of this Court against the defendant No.5 herein, who was defendant No.7 in that suit and the defendant No.5 herein took possession of the firm as Managing Partner under the partnership agreement dated 14.09.1990, since then he is in possession and enjoyment of Kumbara Hadlu Estate, which is item No.1 of the suit schedule as Managing Partner and the said suit was settled on 22.09.1993, thereafter the defendant No.5 and his other family members were in possession of Kumbara Hadlu Estate and managing the same, as per partnership 8 agreement dated 25.03.1970, the lease period of the partnership firm is for a period of 50 years which ends on 25.03.2020. 4. 4. It is further contended that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 entered into conspiracy to deprive the right of the plaintiff, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in order to make unlawful gain for themselves claims to have created a document called as sale deed dated 25.08.2000. Hence, contend that the said document is a sham document, not supported by valid consideration. In the said sale deed, it is stated that they have sold the Kumbara Hadlu Estate to the defendant No.5 showing the consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-, though present market value of the said Kumbara Hadlu Estate which consists of 50 acres of coffee land is not less than Rs.1 Crore and the sale deed is obtained by fraud, in order to avoid the payment of regular real stamp duty and in the schedule which is described as 10 acres of jamma land in Sy.No.1/8, measuring in all 50 acres. The very description of the property indicates that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have played fraud in order to deprive the legal and legitimate right of the plaintiff, in the sale deed, the defendant No.5 claims that he has 9 taken forcible possession of the property in the year 1972, but the defendant No.5 took possession of the property as Managing Partner on 30.07.1990, he has pleaded in the written statement filed in O.S.No.102/90 and in the sale deed, he claimed that he took forcible possession in the year 1972 and has perfected his right by being in hostile and animus possession of the property for more than 30 years, this averment is prima facie false and made with a malicious intention to deprive the legal right of the plaintiff in collusion with defendant Nos.1 to 4, the properties of 14.41 acres in Sy.No.82 of Heravanadu Village which is known as Atti Hadlu was leased by late Mahadevaraja Wodeyar in favour of A.D. Kaveramma, K. Thimmappa, Srinivasa Seth and Seenappa, which was ended in the year 1972. 5. 5. It is also the case of the plaintiff that on 16.09.1972, late Mahadevaraja Wodeyar under registered mortgage deed mortgaged the property for a period of 18 years i.e., till 31.12.1990 in favour of A.D. Kaverappa and Seenappa, the defendant No.6 contacted the plaintiff along with one Jayakumar, husband of defendant No.3 took the signature to a 10 stamped paper representing that all the properties in the name of late Mahadevaraja Wodeyar will be surveyed and then, after demarcation of the boundary, the partition will be effected, and subsequently, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.6 by entering into some understanding with defendant Nos.1 to 4 is in possession and enjoyment of the land, an area of 14.41 acres in Sy.No.82 which is called as Atti Hadlu Estate and enjoying the usufructs of the same. On enquiry with defendant No.6 regarding the property of Atti Hadlu, he started giving some evasive answer, she came to know about the fraud played by defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Hence, she got issued a legal notice on 05.01.1999 withdrawing and canceling the Power of Attorney, even now the defendant No.6 is in possession and enjoyment of Atti Hadlu Estate measuring 14.41 acres in Sy.No.82 of Heravanadu Vllage and out of 65 acres of land in Sy.No.1/1 allotted to late Mahadevaraja Wodeyar, 50 acres was bifurcated and given new Sy.No.1/8 which was pooled to partnership firm, another 15 acres in Sy.No.1/1 is in possession of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 jointly, after death of late Mahadevaraja Wodeyar, she has been requesting the 11 defendant Nos.1 to 4 to divide all the immovable and movable properties belonging to her father by metes and bounds and allot her 1/10th share, but they have been representing that her share will be given to her after duration of the partnership firm by name Kumbara Hadlu Estate is over. Believing their representation, the plaintiff waited such period, but she came to know that the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have clandestinely behind her back sold the said Kumbara Hadlu Estate to the defendant No.5 by showing meager consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- and they are also dealing with defendant No.6 in respect of Atti Hadlu property by taking some document styled as General Power of Attorney. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 deprived plaintiff of her right and played fraud on her, in order to make unlawful gain. Hence, filed the suit seeking the relief of partition. 6. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 did not contest the matter by filing the written statement. But, defendant No.5 filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that defendant No.5 has purchased the property through the sale deed dated 25.08.2000 and the plaintiff has no 12 right to challenge the document and this document is a valid document and binds in the said sale deed and it clearly establishes that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the properties and he has purchased 15 acres in Sy.No.1/1 under the sale deed dated 29.09.1995 and under the sale deed dated 24.09.1970 Lingaraja Wodeyar had sold it to the predecessors in title of defendant No.5. Hence, suit is barred by law of limitation, the suit is not properly valued and the land is not capable of identification and the survey numbers are different. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. 7. The defendant No.6 filed the written statement denying the contention of the plaintiff and entire averments made in the plaint. However admitted the averments made in paragraph No.15 of the plaint that after expiry of usufructs mortgage in the year 1990, the mortgagees wanted to quit item No.2 of the suit schedule properties, they wanted to dispose off item No.2 of the properties and accordingly, they were looking for the buyers. The plaintiff and the defendants had another 30 acres in Sy.No.1/1 which was not included in the partition dated 13 11.01.1954, the said 30 acres in Sy.No.1/1 in Heravanadu Village was allotted to the branch of Mahadevaraja Wodeyar in an oral partition entered into between Basvaraju, Lingaraja and Mahadevaraja, wherein Mahadevaraja and Lingaraja took remaining land in Sy.No.1/1 as their shares, the aforesaid 30 acres in Sy.No.1/1 was also put up for sale, this defendant having come to know the intention of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 4, approached them through a common friend and offered to buy the aforesaid item No.2 of the suit schedule property and Sy.No.1/1 of 30 acres for Rs.2,91,200/-, and the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 agreed to sell the same for Rs.91,200/-. Accordingly, gave a letter dated 20.06.1992 and received an amount of Rs.30,000/- and obtained possession of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties and Sy.No.1/1 of 30 acres and the entire balance consideration was paid to the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 from time to time and nothing more is due. The balance sale consideration was handed over to defendant No.1 as agreed by the parties themselves and in view of the prohibition of registration, the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 executed Power of 14 Attorney on the same day in favour of this defendant, which was based on consideration and between the period ending usufructory mortgage, this defendant taking possession of the aforesaid properties, one B.K. Krishna encroached the aforesaid properties and the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 represented by this defendant as Power of Attorney filed a suit in O.S.No.53/93 on the file of Munsiff Court at Madikeri and O.S.No.5/93 on the file of this Court and O.S.No.5/93 was decreed and in O.S.No.5/93, the plaint was rejected as not maintainable. 8. It is also contended that subsequently, there seems to be some misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in respect of sharing of consideration thus received by them from this defendant and the plaintiff approached this defendant number of times to mediate, in fact, the plaintiff and her husband visited Omkareshwara Temple and on their way back, met this defendant and requested for a copy of the documents executed by her and this defendant handed over the same, he had spent lakhs of rupees on the development 15 of the said land. Hence, the suit is not maintainable, including all the properties i.e., property in Sy.No.1/1 measuring 30 acres in Heravanadu Village, there is no cause of action for the suit. It is contended that the plaintiff has not included all the properties, namely Sy.No.1/1 of 30 acres and plaintiff having received entire sale consideration, cannot maintain a suit in respect of item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties and prayed the Court to dismiss the same. 9. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is having 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale deed dated 25.08.2000 alleged to have executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant No.5 is sham document and not supported by valid consideration and it does not bind the right of the plaintiff? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.6 by entering into some understanding with the defendant Nos.1 to 4 is in possession and 16 enjoyment of an area of 14.41 acres in Sy.No.82 which is called as ‘Attihadlu’ and enjoyed the usufructs of the same? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the mesne profits as prayed for? If so, what is the rate? 5. Whether the suit is barred by Law of Limitation? 6. Whether the defendant No.5 proves that the suit land is not capable of identification, and survey numbers are different? 7. Whether the suit is valued in respect of relief No.3 of the plaint is not correct? 8. Whether the defendant No.6 proves the averments made in paragraph No-16 of the written statement? 9. Whether the suit is not maintainable for non- inclusion of Sy.No.1/1 of 30 acres in Heravanadu Village? 10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief's as prayed for? 11. What order or decree?” 17 10. The plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1, in order to prove her case and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The defendant No.5 examined him as D.W.1 and defendant No.6 examined him as D.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D11. 11. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, answered issue No.1 in the ‘affirmative’, in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in suit schedule properties as against the claim of 1/10th share and answered issue No.2 as partly ‘affirmative’, in coming to the conclusion that sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff. The Trial Court answered issue Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7 as ‘negative’, in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff fails to prove the allegation that defendant No.6 with some understanding with defendant Nos.1 to 4 is in possession of the said property and the contention that suit is barred by limitation is also answered as ‘negative’ and also contention of defendant No.5 that plaintiff is not entitled is answered as ‘negative’. However, answered issue No.8 ‘partly in the affirmative’ that defendant No.6 proves the averments made 18 in paragraph No.16 of the written statement and the Trial Court granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff that plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, present appeal is filed before this Court. 12. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants before this Court is that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and this appeal is filed only by defendant No.5. The main contention of the counsel is that the sale deed which is executed in favour of defendant No.5 is only called in question i.e., Ex.P7 to the extent of 10 acres. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that the sale deed executed in favour of wife and children of defendant No.5 are not called in question in respect of 40 acres of land. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in decreeing the suit. It is not in dispute that father acquired the property in the partition dated 11.01.1954 along with brothers and his mother and in the said partition, seven items of the properties are allotted in favour of father. But, suit is filed only in respect of two items of the properties. It is 19 contended that defendant No.6 is in possession of item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties and as per the oral partition among the members of the family, 30 acres are also allotted and the same is not included in the suit. It is also contended that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have been placed exparte. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 again sold some of the properties and remaining properties are still continued in the name of father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and evidence is very clear regarding acquisition of other properties by the father. 13. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that when other properties are not included, Order 2 Rule 2 CPC attracts and contend that partial partition is not maintainable. The defendant No.6 took the specific defence of non-inclusion of family property while filing the suit and the same is also admitted in the cross-examination. Though, item No.3 of the property is included in the oral partition, no details with regard to boundaries are given and the Trial Court also not given any reason for non- inclusion of the family properties, though issue No.9 was framed. 20 It is contended that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 sold the property during the pendency of this appeal by executing the sale deed. It is contended that item No.3 of the suit schedule properties does not belong to the family of the plaintiff and the same belongs to uncle and he has already sold 15 acres in the year 1970. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that the appellants have filed an application to permit them to produce additional evidence and counsel would vehemently contend that two applications are filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and so also, application is filed for amendment of written statement of defendant No.5. The documents which are available along with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC also to be considered and those properties are not included while filing the suit and suit is filed including only two items of the properties. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court the pendency of other applications and seeks permission of this Court to amend the written statement as well as to receive the additional documents and prays this Court to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 21 14. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in PANNA LAL VS. STATE OF BOMBAY reported in AIR 1963 SC 1516, wherein scope of Order 41 Rule 33 and Order 41 Rule 22 CPC is discussed and the Apex Court held that Appellate Court can give relief to a respondent as against other respondent and referring this judgment, counsel would contend that it empowers the appellate Court not only to give or refuse relief to the appellant by allowing or dismissing the appeal, but also to give such other relief to any of the respondents as “the case may require”. If there is no impediment in law, the High Court in appeal could therefore, though allowing the appeal of the defendant-appellant by dismissing the plaintiff’s suits against it, give the plaintiff respondent a decree against any or all the other defendants, who were parties to the appeal as respondents. 15. The counsel also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in D. LINGEGOWDA VS. SMT. GOWRAMMA AND OTHERS in R.S.A.NO.1971/2018 delivered on 22.06.2024 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.16 of the 22 judgment, wherein the discussion was made with regard to Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and also paragraph No.21, wherein discussion was made with regard to admission on the part of witnesses and also an observation is made that it is a collusive suit and also not included other property which belongs to the family of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2. Learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that all the family properties are not included, though filed collusive suit which is observed in paragraph No.26. In paragraph No.27, an observation is made that there are triable issues in the matter and in paragraph No.29 comes to the conclusion that suit is filed only with an intention to defeat the right of the purchaser. 16. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in RANGAHANUMAIAH NOW DEAD BY LRS VS. DEVARAJU AND OTHERS in R.S.A.NO.209 OF 2007 delivered on 02.06.2023 and brought to notice of this Court detailed discussion made in paragraph No.28 of the judgment, wherein it is observed that when the plaintiffs have challenged the very sale contending that their father was not having absolute right, but 23 filed the suit only for the relief of partition and not included all the family properties. This Court also discussed with regard to attempt made by the appellants to produce the documents to prove that the plaintiff’s family was having other property by invoking Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. This Court also in paragraph No. No.29 made an observation that Court has to take note of the conduct while filing of the suit only in respect of the property which was sold by the father, a suit is filed for the relief of partition. 17. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in KENCHEGOWDA (SINCE DECEASED) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES VS. SIDDEGOWDA ALIAS MOTEGOWDA reported in (1994) 4 SCC 294, wherein the Apex Court has dealt with regard to suit filed for partial partition, when all the joint family properties not made the subject-matter of the suit nor the co-sharers impleaded, the suit is not maintainable. 18. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in G.M.MAHENDRA VS. G.M. MOHAN reported in LAWS(KAR)-2010-9-11, wherein this Court made an 24 observation that in the suit filed to include the whole claim, Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is pressed into service and entire suit schedule properties were not included and the schedule properties were not subject matter of oral partition and suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable, as the suit for partial partition cannot be maintained without seeking leave of the Court as contemplated under Order Rule 2 CPC. 19. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in NAGARATHNAMMA B.S. @ SHOBA VS. SRI THUKARAM AND ANOTHER in R.S.A.NO.1614 OF 2018 delivered on 16.04.2021, wherein also an observation is made with regard to, it is needles to state that such feasibility shall be examined only after conducting an enquiry as prescribed under law to ascertain the value of the properties involved based on criteria such as the nature of soil and nature of easement attached to these properties. 20. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in SHALIMAR CHEMICAL WORKS LIMITED VS. SURENDRA OIL AND DAL MILLS (REFINERIES) AND 25 OTHERS reported in (2010) 8 SCC 423, wherein the Apex Court has discussed with regard to admissibility of evidence and stage at which to be decided and so also the production of additional evidence in appellate Court, permissibility when there is “substantial cause” and appellate Court was right in allowing production of original certificates. 21. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in SRI RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY MUTT VS. SRI UTTARADI MUTT reported in LAWS(KAR)-2017-11-116, wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard to Order 41 Rule 27 CPC regarding production of additional evidence in Appellate Court. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that, when germane issues are involved between the parties to be decided in the appeal, to invoke Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. 22. Per contra, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 in his argument would vehemently contend that it is not in dispute that suit schedule properties belong to the family of Raja and there was a partition in the year 1954 and Mahadevaraja Wodeyar is the propositus of the family. It is also the contention 26 that there was a partnership deed of the year 1970 i.e., 25.03.1970 and 50 acres of land was pooled to partnership. It is not in dispute that plaintiff is the daughter of Mahadevaraja Wodeyar and though it is denied, but the same has not been proved. It is also the contention that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have not filed any written statement denying the fact that plaintiff is not the daughter of Mahadevaraja Wodeyar. Hence, contention of defendant No.5 cannot be accepted. He would also contend that though the appellants denied the relationship of plaintiff, nothing is placed on record. It is not in dispute that there was a sale deed and plaintiff was not party to the said sale deed. It is contended that the appellants have not taken any defence with regard to non-inclusion of properties which are sold. 23. It is contended that non-inclusion of other properties is only for the reason that some of the properties are given to Mutt and there is a bar in registering the property in favour of any person. Hence, the same was not included. Hence, the contention that other family properties are not included cannot be accepted. It is contended that now the question of non- 27 joinder of necessary parties does not arise, since the children are made as parties, including the wife. It is also contended that though earlier suit was filed only for two items of the properties, subsequently, in view of defence taken by defendant No.6, item No.3 was also added. He would further contend that in paragraph No.12 of the judgment of the Trial Court regarding relationship between the parties is concerned, taken note of the fact that though defendant No.5 disputes the said fact, defendant No.6 admits the same. 24. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.1, in support of his argument, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in S. KUMAR VS. THE INSTITUTE OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND PARLIAMENTARY STUDIES AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1984 SC 59, wherein the Apex Court has discussed with regard to leave to amend plaint seeking inclusion of new relief cannot be granted invoking Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, where the original relief's claimed in the suit consisted of a decree of declaration that the proceedings taken against the appellant, an employee of a society registered under the 28 Societies Registration Act, up to the framing of the issues were invalid and a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent Society from dismissing the appellant but, in the meantime the appellant was dismissed by the society and he was aware of the order of dismissal and at no stage up to the dismissal of his second appeal by High Court did the appellant attempt to include a relief in his plaint against the order of dismissal. The learned senior counsel referring this judgment would vehemently contend that the Apex Court held that in an appeal for special leave, appellant cannot be permitted to amend the plaint seeking to include the prayer or relief. He would also contend that at a belated stage Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of pleading and no specific reasons are assigned. He would further contend that with regard to additional documents also, nothing is pleaded by the defendants. 25. In the statement of objections filed by respondent No.1 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, to place additional documents is concerned, it is contended that the respondent and her family members belong to Lingayath community and they 29 have immense faith on Arameri Kalacheri Mutt, Virajpet Taluk, Virajpet of which Matadhipathi was Sri Sri Sri Shantha Malla Swamy and in the year 1971, this respondent’s father late Mahadeva Raja Wodeyar donated the above land to Sri Sri Sri Shantha Malla Swamy for the said Mutt, thereafter the respondent and her family members have not claimed the said property and Sri Sri Sri Shantha Malla Swamy during his lifetime used to come to our house to bless all of us and was cultivating the said property with cardamom and paddy in the wet land and now the said property became deserted with full of forest and due to age factor Sri Sri Sri Shantha Malla Swamy did not come and cultivate the above property and the said property is full of forest now. 26. It is also stated that Sri Sri Sri Shantha Malla Swamy died in the year 1997, few years back the present Matadhipathi of Arameri Kalancheri Mutt and successor of Sri Sri Sri Shantha Malla Swamy, Sri Sri Sri Shantha Mallikarjuna Swamy visited the above property by constructing a Mutt and a old age home, however for want of funds, the said project is delayed. The 30 above property does not belong to our family and it has been donated to Sri Sri Sri Shantha Malla Swamiji, respondent No.1 has not included the above properties in the plaint because the said property does not belong to her parental family after donating the same to Swamiji. The respondent No.1 is not aware of any details of any documentation since she was married at that time and she was living in Bangalore. The fact that above land has been donated to Sri Sri Sri Shantha Malla Swamiji is known to all the family members and the family members have no claim on the said property. The appellants’ father Yogendra Nath is also aware of the said fact. Therefore, he did not raise the said issue before the Trial Court. The documents now sought to be produced without proper pleadings cannot be produced and when this respondent is denying the fact that the above property is not available for partition as it is severed from the family long ago and is owned by some third persons not belonging to the family and no one in the family can make a claim in the said property. 31 27. It is also stated that respondent No.1 also enquired with the Swamiji and respondent No.1 is informed that as the property was Jamma in tenure and he has informed that since in those days, registration of document was not possible, Sri Sri Sri Shantha Malla Swamiji was in custody of a unregistered gift deed and same is now misplaced in the Mutt and she is now ready to file affidavit of Sri Sri Sri Shantha Mallikarjuna Swamy. Now, the respondent No.1 has also filed a memo along with the affidavit of said Sri Sri Sri Shantha Mallikarjuna Swamiji, Successor of Sri Sri Sri Shantha Malla Swamji, who has submitted that he is in possession of the above property on behalf of the Mutt and the ownership of the above property is inherited by him as successor to Sri Sri Sri Shantha Malla Swamiji. It is also stated that the revenue records are not transferred in the name of the Mutt because the above property are Jamma Tenure. It is further contended that those days, registration was not possible, the unregistered gift deed in favour of his guru is misplaced by him in the Mutt. Learned counsel referring the affidavit of the Swamiji would contend that admittedly, since those properties 32 are not available, question of dismissing the suit on the ground of partial partition does not arise. 28. In reply to this argument of learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1, learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently contend that, though the property was donated, all the documents stands in the name of the father of the plaintiff and contend that in respect of item No.2 of the properties, portion of the property was sold during the pendency of the appeal. It is also contended that suit filed by the plaintiff is nothing but fraud against defendant No.5 and also the Court. In the cross-examination, the plaintiff has admitted regarding other properties are concerned and now, fresh ground is urged before this Court by filing statement of objections. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that defendant Nos.1 to 4 have joined hands with the plaintiff, in order to knock off the properties. 29. In reply to this argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 would contend that, as on the date of suit, there is non-inclusion 33 of property to the extent of 15 acres and item No.3 is purchased by defendant No.5 from his vendor and now seek for amendment and also filed applications-I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and detailed statement of objection is filed and now cannot amend the written statement. It is also contended that the amendment which he now intends to make was in the knowledge of defendant No.5 at the time of filing the written statement and now his legal representatives cannot contend that amendment has to be permitted. 30. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Senior counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.6 and also the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in granting the relief of partition in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties and whether it requires interference? 34 (ii) Whether the legal representatives of defendant No.5 i.e., the appellants herein have made out a ground to allow the application for amendment of written statement as sought in the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC? (iii) Whether the appellants have made out a ground to allow the applications- I.A.Nos.2/2024 and 3/2024 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC to receive the documents on record as additional documents? (iv) What order? Point No.(ii) 31. The legal representatives of appellant have filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC in seeking permission to amend the pleadings in written statement of deceased respondent No.5 by incorporating some of the paragraphs i.e., paragraph Nos.10(a) to 10(h) after paragraph No.10 of the written statement with regard to purchase of the property by the family to the extent 50 acres in the name of wife, son and defendant No.5 respectively measuring 20 acres 35 each in the name of wife and son and 10 acres in the name of defendant No.5 and based on the sale deeds, revenue entries are also mutated. The plaintiff made only the defendant No.5 as party to the suit and suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is also contended in the written statement that in the oral partition, item No.3 of the suit schedule properties had fallen to the share of Lingaraja Wodeyar, based on the oral partition, revenue entries are mutated in the name of Lingaraja Wodeyar, during lifetime of Lingaraja Wodeyar, he had sold portion of item No.3 of the suit schedule properties jointly in favour of one C.V. Sadashiva Rao, Narayana Rao and Nanjundeshwawra Rao, after the death of Nanjundeshwara Rao, his wife and children and above 2 persons jointly sold the property in favour of Yogendranath under registered sale deed dated 29.09.1995, the plaintiff herein suppressing all these facts with an intention to knock off item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule properties, suit was filed and played fraud on the Court. 32. 32. It is also contended that earlier sale deed executed by Lingaraja Wodeyar on 24.09.1971 was not challenged and 36 also contend that plaintiff and respondent Nos.1 to 4 jointly sold portion of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties in favour of Smt. Aruna Bhandari vide sale deed dated 14.01.2019 during the pendency of this appeal. It is contended that item No.3 of the suit schedule properties was nowhere concerned to the family of plaintiff, under the oral partition, item No.3 of the suit schedule properties fallen to the share of Lingaraja Wodeyar. Hence, the defendant No.5 may be permitted to plead the same. It is contended that after death of the husband of the deponent, who filed the affidavit, she contend that on the death of her husband, her counsel telephonically informed about the pendency of the above appeal and thereafter contacted the counsel. Therefore, proposed amendment would not either alter or change the nature of relief originally framed and proposed amendments also would not introduce any new cause of action and only the proposed amendment is in the nature of clarifications. Hence, proposed amendment is necessary for the adjudication of the case. 37 33. This application is resisted by filing objections by learned counsel for respondent No.1. In the statement of objection, it is contended that the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.5 were having knowledge about the same and it would have been pleaded by the deceased appellant himself in the written statement. It is contended that suit was of the year 2001 and after lapse of 23 years, the legal representatives of deceased appellant have filed this application only to protract the case and this amendment is not necessary for proper adjudication and only with an intention to protract the proceedings, an application is filed. 34. Having considered the grounds urged in the application and also the objections, during the course of arguments also, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff not disputes the fact that there were sale deeds in favour of the family to the extent of 50 acres i.e., in favour of wife, son and defendant No.5. The counsel would contend that remaining properties are within the knowledge of family and the plaintiff is not party to the said sale deed and plaintiff is entitled for a share 38 in the property, since 15 acres of land in item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is remaining and total extent is 65 acres and even if 50 acres of land is sold, when 15 acres of land is remaining, the same can be allotted in favour of the plaintiff and no dispute with regard to the fact that 15 acres of land is remaining. 35. It is also important to note that there is a force in the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that amendment is sought after lapse of 23 years and defendant No.5 was having knowledge about the same. It is important to note that, in the written statement, defendant No.5 has contended that he has purchased 15 acres in Sy.No.1/1 under the sale deed dated 29.09.1995 and under the sale deed dated 24.09.1970, the said Lingaraja Wodeyar has sold the property to the predecessors in title of defendant No.5 and the claim in paragraph No.12 is false and suit is also barred by limitation. No doubt, the Trial Court framed issues based on the pleadings, but Trial Court missed out very pleading of the defendant No.5 in respect of paragraph No.10 is concerned, when he has 39 specifically pleaded that he had purchased 15 acres of land in Sy.No.1/1 and no issue is framed with regard to purchase of 15 acres under the sale deed dated 29.09.1995, except framing the issue that defendant No.5 proves that suit land is not capable of identification and survey numbers are different. 36. 36. It has to be noted that plaint was amended after framing of issue No.9, since defendant No.6 took the defence that suit is not maintainable for non-inclusion of Sy.No.1/1 of 30 acres in Heravanadu Village and there was a pleading that in Sy.No.1/1, 30 acres was allotted in favour of Lingaraja Wodeyar and had sold the same to the predecessor in title of defendant No.5 in the year 1970 and in turn, he had purchased the property on 29.09.1995. The amendment sought is in respect of purchasing of the property and purchase made by the family of defendant No.5, in total to the extent of 50 acres. Hence, there is no need to seek for an amendment and the Trial Court only missed out the said fact without framing any issue and now the appellants also contend that said property was allotted in favour of Lingaraja Wodeyar and the family of the plaintiff is not 40 concerned with the same and whether the same is concerned to the family of the plaintiff in respect of item No.3 is concerned, it requires definite finding and no such finding is given by the Trial Court and having considered the factual aspects, there is need to amend the written statement to clarify the same, since already there is an averment in paragraph No.5 of the written statement filed by original defendant No.5. 37. It is the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the said property belongs to the family and hence, included the same as item No.3. Having perused the original plaint available before the Court, plaint was amended and item No.3 is included i.e., 30 acres of land in Sy.No.1/1 of Heravanadu Village, Madikeri Taluk, but description of the boundary was not given. When the property was included, the respondent/plaintiff ought to have given boundary description and the same was not given and unless the boundary description is given and when there was a sale deed in respect of the property which the defendant No.5 claims, matter requires further adjudication and in view of the fact that already there was a pleading in paragraph No.10 41 and now the appellants also claim that the same was purchased which belongs to Lingaraja Wodeyar and even though there was a delay of 23 years in filing the application and for the limited purpose, amendment is required to be allowed in view of the fact that description of the property in respect of item No.3 of the suit schedule properties was not given, since the legal representatives of defendant No.5 claim the said property. Hence, the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC has to be allowed on cost. Accordingly, I answer Point No.(ii) as ‘affirmative’. Point No.(iii) 38. The appellants have also filed applications- I.A.Nos.2/2024 and 3/2024 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC praying this Court to permit the legal representatives of original appellant to produce the additional evidence by way of documents which are necessary for adjudication of the dispute. In support of the application- I.A.No.2/2024, an affidavit is sworn to and list of documents is also produced i.e., sale deed dated 25.08.2000 executed in favour of Smt. C.Y. Kamala, sale deed dated 25.08.2000 42 executed in favour of Sri C.Y. Sachin and these two documents were not produced before the Trial Court and the respondent/plaintiff also not disputes the existence of these two sale deeds. However, it is the contention of the appellants that there exists one more sale deed dated 29.09.1995 in favour Sri C.Y. Yogendranath to the extent of 15 acres which he had purchased from his vendors and in turn, his vendors had purchased the said property from Lingaraja Wodeyar and specific pleading is made that the said property belongs to the family of the plaintiff and Lingaraja Wodeyar. The appellants have also produced copy of judgment passed in O.S.No.2/2018, copy of M.R.No.11/2004-05, copy of Jama Bandi in respect of land bearing Sy.No.1/8, copy of death certificate of Sri C.Y. Sachin, who passed away subsequently. 39. Another application-I.A.No.3/2024 is filed seeking permission of this Court to permit the legal representatives of appellant to produce the additional evidence by way of documents under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC, wherein also an affidavit is filed in support of the application 43 producing copy of the registered partition deed dated 11.01.1954 which is the original document necessary for adjudication of the dispute. The legal representatives of appellant have also produced copy of RTC from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 with respect to land bearing Sy.No.79/1 measuring 1 acre 53 cents, RTC from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005 with respect to land bearing Sy.No.79/2 measuring 12 acres 41 cents and also copy of sale deed dated 14.01.2019 with respect to land bearing Sy.No.82/1 of Heravanadu Village and this document came into existence in the year 2019 during the pendency of appeal and prayed the Court to produce these documents which are necessary to adjudicate the dispute. 40. Having perused the documents which are now sought to be produced as additional evidence by way of documents, there is no dispute with regard to purchasing of property in the name of wife and son vide sale deeds dated 25.08.2000 and respondent No.1 also not disputes the same and the respondent No.1 only claims share in respect of remaining property. Hence, these two sale deeds are not necessary. 44 However, the sale deed dated 29.09.1995 executed in favour of Sri C.Y. Yogendranath, since there was a pleading in the written statement itself in paragraph No.10 that the same was purchased from his vendors, who in turn purchased the same from Lingaraja Wodeyar and appellants also claim that this document is in respect of item No.3 of the property. 41. I have already pointed out that no description is given in respect of item No.3 of the suit schedule properties to the extent of 30 acres and appellants claim that the said property was purchased from Lingaraja Wodeyar and the same not belongs to the family of the plaintiff. The other documents are judgment on O.S.No.2/2018, copy of M.R.No.11/2004-2005, Jama Bandi and death certificate of Sri C.Y. Sachin and the same can be considered as additional evidence, in view of the fact that he is one of the purchaser. So also in respect of other additional evidence and the documents which have been produced i.e., the original partition deed dated 11.01.1954, the same is required to adjudicate the issue, even though there is no dispute. The other documents which are sought to be produced i.e., copy of RTCs in 45 respect of Sy.No.79/1 and Sy.No.79/2 is not the subject matter of the suit. Hence, those documents cannot be permitted to be produced before the Trial Court as additional evidence, since item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is in respect of 65 acres of land in Sy.No.1/1, item No.2 is in respect of Sy.No.82 and item No.3 is in respect of 30 acres of land in Sy.No.1/1 and when those properties are not included in the suit, the question of producing the said documents as additional evidence does not arise. However, sale deed dated 14.01.2019 came into existence during the pendency of this appeal and the same be placed before the Trial Court i.e., in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. 42. Having taken note of the documents which have been placed before the Court and also germane issues involved between the parties in respect of item No.3 of the suit schedule properties is concerned, since the appellant claims that already 15 acres of land was purchased from Lingaraja Wodeyar by his vendor and in turn, he purchased the same from his vendor and also claim that item No.3 is in respect of the property purchased 46 by Lingaraja Wodeyar and plaintiff’s family was not having 30 acres of land, in order to adjudicate the issue, these documents are necessary. Hence, I.A.No.2/2024 is to be allowed in part permitting to produce the documents at Sl.Nos.3 to 6 of the list of documents which could be placed before the Trial Court. In respect of I.A.No.3/2024 which is only in respect of item Nos.2 and 5, the said application is to be allowed in part and these documents are necessary for consideration of the matter before the Trial Court. Since, these applications are also filed belatedly, the same also can be considered on payment of cost. Accordingly, I answer point No.(iii) as ‘partly affirmative’. Point No.(i) 43. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that plaintiff is not party to the sale deed of the year 25.08.2000 executed in favour of defendant No.5 and the same in respect of 10 acres. It is also the contention of the appellants that other two sale deeds are not included, while seeking the relief of partition of the sale deed executed in favour of wife and son of defendant No.5 and now the defendant No.5 is no more and son is also no more and legal representatives are before the Court. The 47 respondent/plaintiff also not seriously disputes three sale deeds and fairly submits that, even though total 50 acres of land is sold 15 acres of land is available and in other items of the properties also, there are remaining properties. It is also brought to notice of this Court that plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 have jointly executed sale deed in favour of Smt. Aruna Bhandari on 14.01.2019 in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties. It is also made clear that, when the appellant had purchased the property from defendant Nos.1 to 4, plaintiff was not party to the sale and though defendant No.5 disputes that she is not the daughter, defendant No.6 admits that she is daughter and Trial Court also given finding and the same is not challenged. But, the only contention before this Court by the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.5 is that the defendant No.5 had already purchased the property in the year 1995 and claims that item No.3 of the property belongs to defendant No.5 and this Court also observed that no boundary description was given, though item No.3 is included and the Trial Court granted share in favour of the plaintiff in respect of all the items of the properties and for the limited purpose, the matter 48 requires to be remanded and there is no error on the part of the Trial Court in granting share in favour of the plaintiff. 44. However, the only short question involved is whether item No.3 of the property belongs to defendant No.5, since he claims that the said property originally belongs to Lingaraja Wodeyar and Lingaraja Wodeyar sold the same in favour of his vendor and vendors have sold the property to him and the same is item No.3 of the property or different property has to be adjudicated by the Trial Court. In the absence of such adjudication, this Court also cannot take any decision in the absence of any evidence whether the same is the property purchased by defendant No.5 belongs to his vendor or property belongs to family of plaintiff. Hence, the matter requires to be remanded to the Trial Court only for the limited purpose with regard to the claim of the appellant is concerned that he had purchased the property in the year 1995 and claim of the appellant is in respect of item No.3 is concerned. If the Trial Court gives the finding that portion of item No.3 was sold in favour of defendant No.5 i.e., the original appellant in this 49 appeal, matter requires reconsideration. Hence, I answer Point No.(i) as ‘negative’, in coming to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in holding that the plaintiff is entitled for share in the property. But, in view of the observation of this Court, the matter requires reconsideration. Point No.(iv) 45. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court and the confirmation made by the First Appellate Court are set aside, in view of the additional amendment being sought and also production of additional documents under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for the limited purpose to adjudicate the issue with regard to item No.3 of the suit schedule properties whether the claim made by the appellant that he had purchased portion of item No.3 under the sale deed dated 29.09.1995 which is produced as additional 50 evidence before this Court pertains to item No.3. (iii) The Trial Court is directed to frame an issue to that effect and adjudicate the same only on the said issue whether it belongs to the appellant or it belongs to the family of the plaintiff. (iv) The application filed by the appellants under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC and the applications under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC i.e., I.A.Nos.2/2024 and 3/2024 are allowed on cost of Rs.25,000/- each, in total Rs.75,000/- which is payable at the Trial Court within two weeks from today. Out of the said amount, Rs.60,000/- is payable to the plaintiff and remaining Rs.15,000/- shall vest with the State. (v) The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a time bound period of four months, since this is the suit of the year 2001 and almost two decades have been elapsed. (vi) The learned counsels and their respective parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 17.03.2025 without expecting any notice and assist the Trial Court in disposal of the case in a time bound period of four months from 17.03.2025. 51 (vii) The appellants are directed to file amended written statement on the very date of appearance and Trial Court shall frame an additional issue and parties are given liberty to adduce further evidence, if any, in view of the observations made in the judgment. Even the plaintiff is given liberty to give description of the property in respect of item No.3 by filing necessary application for amendment of schedule of the plaint for proper adjudication immediately. If such application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider the same leniently and the appellants shall not object for the same, since the said amendment is necessary for the purpose of identification of the property. (viii) The Registry is directed to transmit the records, forthwith to enable the Trial Court to take up the matter on 17.03.2025. Sd/- (H.P. SANDESH) JUDGE ST