IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 OF 2020 (PAR/POS)

BETWEEN:

VISAKA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VIKASA TOWER, 1-8-30-/69/3, SP ROAD, SECUNDERABAD 500 003 TELANGANA, AND BRANCH OFFICE AT NO. 27/1, NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KEMPANADODDERI POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 572138, KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT AND AUTHORED SIGNATORY, VENKATESH MADDIPATI S/O M.R.K. MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KISHAN G S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. CHIKKATHAYANAMMA Di gitally signed by W/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, CHANDANA AGED 37 YEARS B M Location: 2. NARASIMHARAJU High Court S/O. NARASINGAIAH, of AGED 29 YEARS Karnataka

3. LOKAMMA D/O. NARASINGAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS

4. NARASINGAIAH S/O. LATE. DODDANARASAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS ALL ARE R/O. KEMPANADODDERI KOAR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK NOW R/AT SOREKUNTE BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK – 572 128 …RESPONDENTS (BY MISS LAVANYA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVCOATE FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.01.2018 PASSED IN OS.No.116/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.116/2012 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the said suit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 – plaintiffs against respondent No.4-defendant for partition and separate possession in the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nso.1 to 4 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against respondents No.4-defendant for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable property and for other reliefs. In the said suit, respondent No.4, who was the sole defendant in the suit was placed exparte and the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order decreeing the suit in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs against respondent No.4- defendant. Subsequently, the appellant herein claiming to be a purchaser of the entire suit schedule property from the sole defendant has preferred the present appeal inter alia contending that though he had purchased the suit schedule property vide registered sale deed dated 11.08.2004, much prior to institution of the suit, i.e., in the year 2012 was not made a party to the suit nor was he aware about the same and as such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the suit afresh, by providing an opportunity to the appellant to contest the suit on merits and in accordance with law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents, the respondents have no objection for the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court to be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, by impleading/adding the appellant as additional defendant No.2 to the suit and to proceed further in accordance with law.

5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matt