IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 135 OF 2017 (PAR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. G. RAMESH., S/O GOVINDARAJU, AGED 48 YEARS, R/A MARKET ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. NITISH K.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. JAYAMMA, AGED 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by W/O PUTTAIAH,R/O HALMIDI, REKHA R BANNUR POST, BELUR TALUK, Location: HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 115.

High Court of Karnataka

2. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANDRAIAH, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101.

3. SRI NAVEENA AGED 24 YEARS, S/O LATE CHANDRAIAH, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 4. SRI. T.C. PRASANNA, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O CHANDRU, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101.

5. SMT. DODDAMMA, AGED 79 YEARS, W/O LATE HUCHAIAH, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101. 6. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGD 47 YEARS, W/O LATE CHANDRAIAH, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101.

7. CHANDRU, AGD 45 YEARS, S/O LATE HUCHAIAH, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101.

8. SRI. GURURAJANAIKA, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O GANGANAIKA, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101.

9. SRI. T.R. UMESH RAJ URS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O T.N. RANGARAJA URS, R/O NALLUR GATE, MARUTHINAGARA, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101.

10. SRI. PUNEETH, AGED 21 YEARS, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101.

11. SRI. POORNESH, S/O LATE PUTTASWAMY, AGED 19 YEARS, R/O THEGUR VILLAGE, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.R. SATISH, ADVOCATE FOR R4, SRI. VARDHAMAN V GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R9, SRI. J.N. NAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7, R10 & R11, R8 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED, VIDE ORDER DATED:13.12.2018, R1 TO R3, R6 & R7 ARE TREATED AS LRs OF DEAD R5)

THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED: 02.09.2016 PASSED IN OS NO.4/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU. DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

This appeal by defendant No.4 under Section 96 of CPC challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 02.09.2016 in O.S.No.04/2012 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Chikkamagalur (for short, 'the Trial Court'), only to the extent of Item No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

3. Shorn of details, brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are as under:

The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking following releifs:

a) For Partition and separate possession of 1/4^th share of plaintiff No.1, half share in the 1/4^th share, of plaintiff No.2 and 3 collectively and half share in 1/4^th share of plaintiff No.4 in all schedule properties by metes and bounds;

b) For an order to enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC;

c) For Court costs and such other reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiff No.1, defendant No.2 and late Lakshmamma are the daughters and defendant No.3 is the son of defendant No.1. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of late Gangamma. Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 are the purchasers of the properties.

5. The Genealogical Tree produced at Ex.P13 is extracted for easy reference of relationship of the parties, which reads as under:

CdÓ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAiÀÄå (¥ÀªÀw)

wªÀÄäªÀÄä (¥ÀªÀw)

|

ºÀÄZÀÑAiÀÄå ªÀÄUÀ (¥ÀªÀw)

zÉÆqÀتÀÄä ¸ÉÆ¸É 75 ªÀµÀð vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ : ºÀÄZÀÑAiÀÄå (¥ÀªÀw)

zÉÆqÀتÀÄä ¥Àwß 75 ªÀµÀð

1) dAiÀĪÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 44 ªÀµÀð 2) ®PÀëöäªÀÄä