IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13997 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. P. L. VENKATESH SON OF LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PATTANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITEFIELD POST, K.R. PURAM, HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 066.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI OMKARA N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by

1. SMT. RATHNAMMA @ NAGARATHNA SUMA D/O. LATE LINGAPPA, Location:

HIGH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, COURT OF R/O. DODDAHIGGALUR VILLAGE, KARNATAKA KUDENUR POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

2. SMT. PUTTAMM @ PUTTATHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PATTANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITEFIELD POST, K.R. PURAM, HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 066. 3. SMT. YELLAMMA D/OF LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF PATTANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITEFIELD POST, K.R. PURAM, HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 066.

4. SMT. MANJAMMA @ MANJULA D/OF LATE LINGAPPA, W/O LATE RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, C/O M.S. TAILORS, BEHIND GANESH TEMPLE, GOTTIGERE WEAVERS COLONY, BENGALURU-560 083.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SADASHIVA REDDY D.V., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. M.S.SHISHIRA HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.07.2022 PASSED ON I.A NOS.10, 11, 13 AND 15 PASSED IN FDP NO.18/2011 PENDING BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the respondent No.4 in FDP No.18/2011 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is directed against the impugned order passed on I.A. Nos.10, 11, 13 and 15 filed by the respective respondent herein, whereby the Trial Court modified the preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.541/1997 in terms of the impugned order. 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.1 - plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the petitioner - defendant No.4 and respondent Nos.2 to 4 - defendant Nos.2, 3 and 5 respectively, for partition and separate possession of her alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other reliefs. The said suit after contest was partly decreed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants including the petitioner - defendant No.4 vide judgment and decree dated 22.10.2005 passed by the Trial Court. The operative portion of the said judgment and decree reads as under:

"The suit of the plaintiff is decreed in part holding that she has got 1/10^th share out of the suit 'A' schedule properties and the 1^st item of the suit 'B' schedule property and she is entitled for partition and separate possession of her share in the above said properties by metes and bounds.

The 2^nd defendant is entitled to 0.5/10^th share and the

5^th defendant is entitled to 1/10^th share in the above said properties only and they are also entitled for partition and separate possession of their share by metes and bounds and they are liable to pay requisite court fee, as their shares are also declared.

While partitioning the temple, tombs situated in item No.2 of the 'A' schedule property and also a portion of the above said property acquired for road by the Government have to be excluded.

The plaintiff is also entitled for rendering of accounts in respect of the income if any get from the suit 'A' schedule properties and the 1^st item of the 'B' schedule property, from the date of suit, till the plaintiff is put in possession of her share from the 4^th defendant. In that aspect, the enquiry has to be held and only if income is found, then, the plaintiff is entitled for her share out of that income.

The suit in respect of the other suit properties is dismissed.

Draw up preliminary