Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.572 OF 2011 (PAR)
C/W REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.439 OF 2011 (PAR)
IN RFA No. 572/2011 BETWEEN:
SRI.OBA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS
11. SRI.P.O.VIJAYA REDDY S/O LATE OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
22. SRI.P.O.ASHWATH KUMAR S/O LATE OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA BOTH ARE R/AT Location: HIGH COURT OF PARAPPANA AGRAHARA KARNATAKA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK …APPELLANTS (BY SRI.P.N.NANJA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.P.O.NARAYANA REDDY S/O LATE OBA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
1(A) SMT.SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
1(B) SRI.N.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
1(C) SMT.N.NIRMALA W/O GAJEBDRA REDDY D/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
1(D) SMT.NETHRAVATHI W/O L.SRINIVASA REDDY D/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.868, 5TH MAIN ROAD CHOWDESHWARY LAYOUT MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 037
2. SRI.P.O.PATTABIRAM REDDY @ PATTABI S/O LATE OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
3. SMT.PREMAKUMARI W/O RAJA REDDY D/O LATE OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT HRBR LAYOUT BEHIND KEB OFFICE KALYANANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 043
4. SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
4(A) SMT.CHINNAMMA W/O LATE P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
4(B) SRI.DHANANJAYA REDDY S/O LATE P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
4(C) SMT.SUJATHA W/O LATE GOVERDHAN REDDY D/O MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4(D) SMT.VISHALAKSHI W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY D/O LATE P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
4(E) SMT.VINUTHA W/O GANESH REDDY D/O LATE P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.2520 14TH CROSS, 24TH MAIN
1ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRADEEP KUMAR R.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.1(A TO D) AND R.2;
SRI.K.M.ANIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R.1 AND R.2;
SRI.V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G.PAPI REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR R.3;
SRI.N.S.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R.4(A & B)
R.4(C) TO R.4(E) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1845/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND ETC.
IN RFA NO.439/2011 BETWEEN:
SMT.PREMAKUMARI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O RAJA REDDY D/O LATE OBA REDDY R/O HRBR LAYOUT BEHIND K.E.B OFFICE KALYANA NAGARA BENGALURU ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.G.PAPI REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.V.VINOD REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.OBA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS
2. SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS
2(A) SMT.CHINNAMMA W/O LATE SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2(B) SRI.DHANANJAYA REDDY S/O LATE SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
2(C) SMT.SUJATHA W/O L.GOVERDHAN REDDY D/O LATE SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2(D) SMT.VISHALAKSHI W/O LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY D/O LATE SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
2(E) SMT.VINUTHA W/O GANESH REDDY D/O LATE SRI.P.O.MOHAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.2520, 14TH CROSS
24TH MAIN, 1ST SECTOR HSR LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 102
33. SRI.P.O.VIJAYA REDDY S/O SRI.OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.1277, 'A' BLOCK VIJINAPURA BENGALURU - 560 016
44. SRI.P.O ASHWATH REDDY S/O SRI.OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT PARAPPANA AGARAHARA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
55. SRI.P.O.NARAYANA REDDY SINCE DEAD BY LRS
5(A) SMT.SHANTHAMMA S/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
5(B) SRI.N.CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
5(C) SMT.N.NIRMALA W/O GAJENDRA REDDY D/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
5(D) SMT.NETHRAVATHI W/O L.SRINIVASA REDDY D/O LATE P.O.NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.868, 5TH MAIN ROAD CHOWDESHWARI LAYOUT MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037
5. SRI P.O.PATTABIRAM REDDY @ PATTABI S/O SRI. OBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT PARAPPANA AGRAHARA BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T.S.MAHANTESH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2;
SRI.N.S.VISHWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2(A & B)
R.1 - IS DEAD AS PER CAUSE TITLE SRI.S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2(C)
SRI.K.VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 AND R.4;
SRI.PRADEEP KUMAR R.H., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHANMUKHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 AND R.6;
R.2(D), R.2(E), R.5(A), R.5(B), R.5(C), R.5(D)
ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 06.12.2010 IN O.S.No.1845/2004 PASSED BY XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL JUDGMENT
These two appeals are filed by the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 assailing the judgment and decree dated 06.12.2010 passed in O.S.No.1845/2004 on the file of the 22nd Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-7), wherein the plaintiffs' suit seeking relief of partition is dismissed and at the same time, the Trial Court has relegated defendant No.3/daughter of plaintiff No.1 to file a separate suit for partition challenging the partition between plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2.
2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. Genealogical Tree of the family reads as under;
4. Facts leading to the case are as under;
The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Late Sri.Oba Reddy is the father of the plaintiff No.2 namely P.O.Mohan Reddy, plaintiff No.3 namely P.O.Vijaya Reddy, plaintiff No.4 namely P.O.Ashwathkumar and defendants. The plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession contending that the suit schedule properties are joint family coparcenary properties. It is specifically pleaded that plaintiff No.1, Oba Reddy acquired the said properties in a family partition effected in the year 1961 under a registered Partition Deed dated 01.05.1961. The plaintiffs have categorically asserted that they, along with defendant Nos.1 and 2, constitute an undivided Joint Hindu Family that plaintiff No.1 was the Kartha of the family and that the suit schedule ‘A’ properties are ancestral properties allotted to plaintiff No.1 under the said partition.
5. The plaintiffs have further averred that certain ancestral properties were alienated for family necessity and that sites formed in Sy.No.43 were also sold and therefore, those properties were consciously excluded from the present suit for partition. The plaintiffs have also asserted entitlement to a share in the suit schedule ‘B’ property, which originally belonged to Lingamma, the wife of plaintiff No.1 and the mother of plaintiff Nos.2, 3, 4 and defendant Nos.1 to 3.
6. Upon service of summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their written statement stoutly denying the plaint averments. While partially admitting the registered Partition Deed dated 01.05.1961 and the allotment of certain properties to plaintiff No.1, the defendants pleaded that there was a partition during the lifetime of plaintiff No.1, dated 19.06.1995 among plaintiff No.1, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and defendant Nos.1 and 2, resulting in complete severance of joint family status. They further pleaded that, pursuant to the said partition, the parties have been exercising exclusive rights and have independently dealt with their respective shares. Though they admitted acquisition of land in Sy.No.50/3 for formation of Jail and 27 guntas in Sy.No.67/2 for road formation by the Government, they sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that the present claim is barred by the fact that there was a partition that took place during the lifetime of plaintiff No.1.
7. Defendant No.3, the daughter of plaintiff No.1, filed a separate written statement supporting the plaintiffs’ case and sought allotment of her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.
8. On the basis of rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed appropriate issues and relegated the parties to trial. The plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.3 as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and relied upon 29 documents. The defendants examined defendant No.1 as D.W.1 along with three other witnesses as D.Ws.2 to 4 and produced documents marked as Exs.D.1 to D.9.
9. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.3 to 5 in the affirmative. While answering issue No.4, the Trial Court held that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had succeeded in proving the plea of prior partition dated 19.06.1995. However, while answering additional issue No.10 in the negative, the Trial Court, adverting to Section 6-A of the Hindu
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
