SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 961

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
T.C. Gopala Since Dead By Lrs. - Appellant 
Versus 
Kuberappa, Since Dead By His Lrs - Respondent 
Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.31 of 2021 (RO)
Decided on : 12-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI YOGESH V. KOTEMATH, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI S.RAJENDRA, SRI HEGDE HUDLAMANE

The court affirmed that a partition executed based on a Commissioner's report is valid and should not be overturned without substantial justification, maintaining the finality of previous decrees.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections applicable to appeal and partition matters - A decree for partition had attained finality and was to be executed based on the Commissioner's report, which was improperly set aside due to unfounded claims regarding the basis of property division. (Paras 1-17)

(B) Final Decree Proceedings - The necessity for proper appreciation of material on record and proper division of property as per legal standards was emphasized. The First Appellate Court's observations were deemed speculative and unsupported by evidence. (Paras 6, 12, 14)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff challenged the First Appellate Court's decision to set aside a trial court's order partitioning properties among parties. A prior decree granted a quarter share to the plaintiff, outlining properties to be divided. The First Appellate Court found issues with how the properties were divided without considering land fertility.

Findings of Court:
The court found the First Appellate Court's decision flawed and confirmed the trial court's division of property based on the Commissioner's report.

Issues: The main issues concerned the propriety of the property division and whether the First Appellate Court's grounds for reversing the trial court's decision were justifiable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the partition executed as per the Commissioner's report was valid and proper division was conducted as per the long-established decree.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. partition and shares in properties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. continuity of litigation through generations. (Para 5 , 10 , 11)
3. arguments about property division. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 15)
4. court's reasoning against the appellate ruling. (Para 13 , 14 , 17)
5. final judgment and orders. (Para 18)

ORDER :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Present Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.10002/2019, whereby appeal came to be allowed and judgment and final decree passed by the trial Court in F.D.P.No.4/2013, dated 16.11.2013 is set aside and matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal after appointing the fresh Court Commissioner.

2. Facts, in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

Suit in O.S.No.203/2005 claiming partition and separation of the following properties came to be decreed on 12.04.2012:

“SUIT ‘A’ SCHEDULE PROPERTIES

Item No.1

All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.74 situated at Huligadde village, Humcha Hobli, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga 10 acre 16 guntas and bounded by :

East : River Kumadwathi; West : Government Land;

North : River and annappa Naika’s land;

South : Lands of Chandra Naika;

Item No.2:

All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy No.20 situated at Tariga, Amrutha village, Humcha hobli, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga 4 acres 19 guntas, in which 12 teak wood trees are standing and bounded by:

East : Lands of Eshwarappa Gowda;

West : Lands of Ganesh Shetter;

North : Government Land ;

South : Lands of Thimmappa;

Item No.3:

All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.40/3, situated at Tariga village, Humcha Hobli, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga 1 acre 24 guntas and bounded by:

East : Lands of Shankar Naika;

West : Nagendrappa’s land;

North : Lands of Yanka Naika;

South : Lands of Bistappa Gowda;

Item No.4:

All the piece and parcel of property bearing Sy.No.49/12, situated at Tariga, Amrutha Village, Humcha hobli, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga 1 acre 5 guntas and bounded by:

East : Lands of Devamma;

West : Land of Devaraj;

North : Lands of Renuka Naika;

South : Lands of Devaraj;

Item No.5:

All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.47, situated at Tariga, Amrutha village, Humcha hobli, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga 36 guntas and bounded by:

East : Government Land;

West : Lands of Channappa Gowda;

North : Lands of Yanka Naika;

South : Lands of Kaillurappa Gowda;

Item No.6:

All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.49/4, situated at Tariga, Amrutha village, Humcha hobli, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga 13 guntas and bounded by ;

East : Lands of Yogendrappa;

West : Lands of Devaraj; North : Government Land;

South : Lands of Nagendrappa;

Item No.7 :

All the piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.58/4, situated at Tariga, Amrutha Village, Humcha hobli, Hosanagara Taluk, Shimoga 31 guntas and bounded by ;

East : Yogendra Naika;

West : Lands of Devaraj; North : Government Land;

South : Government Land;

SUIT ‘B’ SCHEDULE PROPERTY

Golden ornaments which are in possession of the 1 and 3rd defendant weighing about 200 grams, worth about Rs.1,30,000/-.

2.1. 'Decree attained finality whereby plaintiff has been given 1/4th share in suit ‘A’ schedule properties.

2.2. In order to get the property divided by metes and bounds, final decree proceedings was initiated in F.D.P.No.04/2013.

2.3. Learned Judge in the trial Court by order dated 16.11.2013 allowed the Final Decree Proceedings accepting the Commissioner Report and allotted the share as per the Commissioner’s Report and the sketch.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, Sri Premraj who was defendant No.3 in O.S.No.203/2005 and plaintiff in final decree F.D.P.No.04/2013 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court which was numbered as R.A.No.10002/2019.

4. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after securing the records heard the arguments of the parties and set aside the final decree passed by the trial Court on the ground that th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top