IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2014 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. B.S. RAVIKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 2. VATSHALA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 3. MALA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE CHILDREN OF SHRINIVASA R/O BELAGOLA VILLAGE, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK-571 438.

Digitally signed by KIRAN …APPELLANTS KUMAR R (BY SRI. V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE)

Location: HIG H COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. JANAKAMMA W/O LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O KUMBARAGERI, SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN-571 438.

2. H.V. BASAVARAJU S/O VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O HOSSANDURU VILLAGE-571 438, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.

3. SHRINIVASA S/O LATE KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 4. MANJULA W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 ARE R/AT BELAGOLA VILLAGE-571 438, BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUNANDA SARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DEEPAK J., ADVOCATE FOR R2.,;

R1, R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DTD 07.09.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.190/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE MANDY (SITTING AT SRIRANGAPATNNA) PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND MODIFYING JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD. 17.09.2011 PASSED IN O.S. NO. 149/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), JUDGE., SRIRANGAPATNA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2013 passed in R.A. No.190 of 2011 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, sitting at Srirangapatna.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for a partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Kariyappa was the original propositus. He had three children viz., Doddappa, Hanumashetty and Srinivasa. The plaintiffs are the children of Srinivasa i.e., defendant No.1; Defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1 and the mother of the plaintiffs; and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the purchasers of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

5. It is contended that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the members of a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. There is no partition effected between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plaintiffs demanded a partition and separate possession, but, defendant No.1 refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

6. Despite the service of summons on defendant Nos.1 and 2, they remained unrepresented, and were placed ex parte.

7. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that defendant No.1 sold Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 06.09.2004. Defendant No.3 is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. It is also contended that defendant No.3 had sold the said property in favour of defendant No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 06.05.2006. Defendant No.4 is in possession of Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties and he is a bona fide purchaser of the same. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit insofar as Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties is concerned.

8. The Trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

“1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the childr