IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 750 OF 2018 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. M. BHAGYA D/O LATE C. MUNIRUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. NO.21/42, 16^TH CROSS

16^TH MAIN, PADMANABHANAGARA BENGALURU - 85

2. SMT. M. ANNAPOORNA D/O LATE C. MUNIRUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT SOMESHWARA TEMPLE STREET NAGARTHPET, VIJIPURA DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110 Digitally signed by

3. SMT. M. SUBHADRA PRAMILA G V D/O LATE C. MUNIRUDRAPPA Location:

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS HIGH COURT R/AT KALIKAMBA ROAD OF DEVANAHALLI TOWN KARNATAKA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110

4. SMT. M. UMADEVI D/O LATE C. MUNIRUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.1331, AGRAHARA TUMAKURU TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101

5. M. MANJUNATH S/O LATE C. MUNIRUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT MARUTHINAGARA DODDABALLAPURA TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203

6. M. RUDRAPPA S/O LATE C. MUNIRUDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.222/1, 6^TH CROSS VENKATAPURA NEW EXTENSION KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. S.B. LAKSHMI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. M. PARAMASHIVAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LR's

1(A) SMT. HEMAVATHI W/O LATE M. PARAMASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

1(B) MR. MITHUN S/O LATE M. PARAMASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

1(C) MR. LOKESH S/O LATE M. PARAMASHIVAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1(A) TO 1(C) ARE R/AT GANIGARA PETE OPPOSITE TO NEW KARAGA TEMPLE DODDABALLAPURA TOWN-561 203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

2. P.R. NATARAJ SINCE DEAD BY LR's

2(A) MR. NAVEEN KUMAR N S/O LATE P.R. NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

2(B) MR. NITHIN KUMAR S/O LATE P.R. NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2(A) TO 2(B) ARE R/AT NO.34/7, 10^TH MAIN

14^TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA EXTENSION WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-560 027

3. SMT. S. MANJULA D/O C. SHIVARUDRAPPA AGEDA ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT, NO.60, 2^ND FLOOR

10^TH MAIN, WILSON GARDEN BENGALURU-30 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR A/W SRI. AMARA NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATES FOR R2 [A AND B] AND R3;

VIDE ORDER DATED 29.04.2025 NOTICE TO R1 [A TO C]

IS HELD SUFFICIENT BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.3.2018 PASSED IN OS NO.4087/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2018 in O.S.No.4087/2025 on the file of XXV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru.

2. The suit is one for partition and separate possession. The suit is decreed holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to 6/7^th share in the consideration amount received by defendant No.1, from defendants No.2 and 3, pursuant to sale of item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

3. The suit is not pressed in respect of item No.2 property on the premise that there is already a settlement in respect of the said property.

4. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the plaintiffs are in appeal.

5. Certain facts borne out from the pleadings are as under:

5.1 The property in question originally belonged to C.Munirudrappa, the propositus, who died on 01.09.1987. His wife Smt. Lakshmi Devamma, died on 23.06.1994. The couple had seven children. Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the children of Munirudrappa and Lakshmi Devamma.

5.2 The suit is filed on the premise that, the plaintiffs have 6/7^th share in respect of two properties. Defendants No.2 and 3 are the purchasers of the property from defendant No.1.

5.3 Defendants No.2 and 3 would contend that defendant No.1 had the power of attorney from all the plaintiffs to sell the property, as such, the registered sale deeds dated 14.08.2003 and 23.09.2004 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 in respect of item No.1 property are valid.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/

appellants would urge the plaintiffs