IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. /2025 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.6132/2023)

T. NARASIMHA REDDY APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS M.P. SUBRAMANI NAIDU (SINCE DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. RESPONDENT(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.01.2023 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.1554/2012 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, the plaintiff(s) in O.S. No.1690/2006 have preferred this appeal.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status and position in the civil suit being O.S.

No.1690/2006.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as stated by the appellant/plaintiff are that the suit scheduled properties are ancestral and joint family properties. Defendant No.2, i.e., the uncle of the plaintiff, is said to have fraudulently obtained a registered release deed dated 01.07.1971 in respect of the ancestral properties from defendant Nos.1 and 3, who were the plaintiff’s father and brother respectively. On the basis of the said release deed, defendant No.2 [hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by also referred to as “vendor”] transferred the item Nos.1 and 2 RADHA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.30

16:44:52 IST Reason:

of the suit scheduled properties in favor of defendant No.4 (original respondent No.1 herein) under two sale deeds dated 31.01.1996. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a civil suit being O.S. No.287/1996 before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District, seeking partition of the suit scheduled properties by metes and bounds and a declaration that the release deed dated 01.07.1971 and the two sale deeds dated 31.01.1996 as invalid and not binding. The said suit was later renumbered as O.S. No.1690/2006, from which the present proceedings originate. Defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit and was placed ex-parte in the said proceedings before the trial court.

By judgment and preliminary decree dated 10.07.2008 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) and J.M.F.C, Anekal in O.S. No.1690/2006, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed. The plaintiff was held to be entitled for partition and separate possession of his 1/3^rd share out of the half share of suit scheduled properties, which means 1/6^th share in the suit scheduled properties. Further the release deed and the sale deeds were held to be not binding on the plaintiff with respect to his 1/6^th share in the suit scheduled properties.

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.07.2008, the legal heirs of the defendant No.2 filed an appeal, being R.A. No.175/2008 before the District Court, Bangalore Rural District. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 remained absent in the said appellate proceedings. During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff and the legal heirs of defendant No.2 entered into a compromise. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, by his order dated 27.10.2009, accepted the compromise memo and directed that a decree may be drawn in terms of the compromise and the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2008 of the Civil Judge be modified accordingly.

The plaintiff thereafter filed a petition being FDP No.8/2010 before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) and J.M.F.C, Anekal, praying for the appointment of a commissioner to partition the suit scheduled properties and allot the respective shares to the parties in terms of the decree dated 10.07.2008. The defendants were all proceeded ex-parte in these final decree proceedings. The Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) and J.M.F.C, Anekal allowed the appointment of a Court Commissioner and on the basis of the report prepared by the Court Commissioner, a final decree for partition was passed by the said Court on 28.03.2011 in FDP No.8/2010 under Order XX Rule 18, read with Section 54, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2009, by which the appellate court had accepted the compromise and directed the modification of th