IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2012 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

G.SATHYANARAYANA,

S/O LATE.G.B.GANGADHAR,

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

R/AT NO.79, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD,

PRAKASH NAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR,

BANGALORE-560 021.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T. ADVOCATE

FOR SRI.K.V.NARASIMHAN. ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT.G.PADMA,

D/O LATE G.B.GANGAHAR,

W/O SONY NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

Digitally

signed by K G R/AT NO.187-C, 18^TH MAIN,

RENUKAMBA 1^ST ‘N’ BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR,

Location: BANGALORE-560 010.

HIGH COURT

OF

KARNATAKA 2. SHRI.G.SHIVAKUMAR,

S/O LATE G.B.GANGADHAR,

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

R/AT NO.79, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD,

PRAKASH NAGAR,

BANGALORE-560 021.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.H.GIRIDHAR. ADVOCATE)

THIS RFA IS FILED U/SEC.96, R/W O-41, RULE-1 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.09.2008 PASSED IN O.S.NO.4121/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII-ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR THE PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.09.2008 passed in O.S.No.4121/2004 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. The plaintiff/appellant filed a suit seeking a decree of partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s 1/4^th respective share together with right, title and interest in the schedule property. Further, a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff’s lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property detailed and described in the schedule. Further, claim of mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of realisation of the plaintiff’s 1/4^th respective share was sought.

3. The suit schedule property was described as bearing No.79, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Prakashnagar, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru. The case set up in the plaint was that the schedule property was a family property purchased by the father of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed date 15.01.1958 which was a vacant site. His father was working as a booking clerk in Geetha Talkies and was getting a very meager income and thereby it was not possible for him to erect any construction. His father died in the year 1967. At the time of his death the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 were very young and were pursuing their studies. The plaintiff and the defendants were dependent upon one Smt. G. Saraswati, his eldest sister. His eldest sister was a film actress and had income to take care of the plaintiff and defendants.

4. The plaintiff, it is stated being the eldest male member of the family started supporting the entire family. He undertook a job in a furniture shop and made attempts to complete his secondary education. He got employment in M/s. Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd., as a workman and out of the income the plaintiff invested for the purpose of construction of ground floor and one unit in the first floor and also the education of defendants No.2 and 3. It was stated that out of his income he also performed marriage of his sister Smt. Padma and the marriage of the third defendant. Plaintiff was married in the year 1983. In view of the incompatibility in the family, the fist defendant who is mother of the plaintiff provided a separate premises for the plaintiff within the suit schedule property. Though the sale deed stands in the name of the first defendant, however, she had not made any investments and the property stood as a joint family property only. Defendant No.1 stated that she had exclusively declared that she had gifted the schedule property in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. She had intention to disp