[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sathyavathi vs Kashinath Rao on 1 December, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:50013
WP No. 8462 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 8462 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SATHYAVATHI
W/O. LATE K. VITTAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
2. VINOD
S/O. LATE K. VITTAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
3. SANTHOSH
S/O. LATE K. VITTAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
4. ANITHA
D/O LATE K. VITTAL RAO
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
Digitally signed 5. SANGEETHA
by NANDINI M
S D/O LATE K. VITTAL RAO
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ALL ARE RESIDING AT
SILVER OAK RANCH ESTATE
RAAGAWAN PALYA, GOTTIGERE
POST, KANAKAPURA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 083.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.K. MITHUN, ADV.)
AND:
1. KASHINATH RAO
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:50013
WP No. 8462 of 2021
HC-KAR
a. SAKKU BAI
W/O LATE KASHINATH RAO
SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED
BY LRs 1(b & 1(c)
b. HEERA BAI
D/O LATE KASHINATH RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
c. RAMACHANDRA RAO
S/O. LATE KASHINATH RAO
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.8, 2ND CROSS
CO-OP COLONY, KRISHNAGIRI TOWN
DHARMAPURI DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU - 635 002.
2. K. SUBRAMANI RAO
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
a. RAJINI
W/O LATE K. SUBRAMANI RAO
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
b. HEMANTH
S/O LATE K. SUBRAMANI RAO
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
c. KETHAN
S/O LATE K. SUBRAMANI RAO
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.D-3
SWAMINATHAN STREET
EAKAT THAGAL
CHENNAI - 600 097.
3. GANESH RAO
S/O LATE R. KUPPAJI RAO
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 40, 9TH CROSS
5TH WARD, VSR LAYOUT
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:50013
WP No. 8462 of 2021
HC-KAR
UDAYNAGAR, TIN FACTORY
BENGALURU - 560 016.
4. K. GAYATHRI
D/O LATE KASHINATH RAO
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
5. K. SAVITHRI
D/O LATE KASHINATH RAO
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
6. K. MEERA BAI
D/O LATE KASHINATH RAO
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO. 8 TO 10
ARE RESIDING AT NO.13
1ST F CROSS, YELLAMMAN
KOIL STREET, ULSOOR
BENGALURU - 560 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(V/O DTD:11.12.2022, SRI H.S. RUKKOJI RAO, ADV.,
FOR R-1(b) & R-1(c) & R-3 (VK NOT FILED FOR R-3);
SRI S. MRUTHUNJAYA, ADV., FOR R-2(a TO c)
SRI SACHIN V.R, ADV., FOR R-4 TO R-6;
V/O DTD:11.02.2022 R-1(a) IS EXPIRED &
R-1 (b & c) ARE THE LRs OF DECEASED R-1(a)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER, DATED
9.07.2020, PASSED ON I.A.9, FILED U/OR. XX RULE 18(1) OF CPC,
1908 IN FDP NO.25035/2011, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXVII
ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSION JUDGE (CCH-58), MAYOHALL UNIT,
BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:50013
WP No. 8462 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The legal representatives of respondent no.3 in
FDP.No.25035/2011 are before this Court in this writ petition
filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with a
prayer to set aside the order dated 09.07.2022 passed on
IA.no.5 in FDP.No.25035/2011 by the Court of LXVII Addl. City
Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. O.S.No.11210/1998 was filed before the jurisdictional
Civil Court by respondent nos.4 to 6 herein seeking the relief of
partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
properties. The said suit was decreed and it was held that
plaintiff nos.1 & 2 viz., respondent nos.4 & 5 herein were
entitled for 1/120th share each in the suit schedule properties,
and the claim of plaintiff no.3 who is their mother was rejected.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants had
filed RFA.No.2157/2010 before this Court which was allowed
and the share of the parties to the suit was modified.
NC: 2025:KHC:50013
HC-KAR
4. Thereafter, the decree-holders in O.S.No.11210/1998 had
initiated final decree proceedings before the Trial Court in
FDP.No.25035/2011 and during the pendency of the said
proceedings, respondent no.2 - Smt. K.Jana Bai had died. It is
under these circumstances, IA.no.9 was filed under Order XX
Rule 18 CPC with a prayer to modify the share allotted to the
parties under the preliminary decree since K.Jana Bai had died
issueless. Objection was filed to the said application by the
petitioners herein and the Trial Court vide the order impugned,
allowed IA.no.9 and has modified the preliminary decree by
enlarging the share of the parties to FDP.No.25035/2011
proportionately. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners
are before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that during
her lifetime, Jana Bai had executed certain sale deeds in
respect of the suit schedule properties, and therefore, the Trial
Court is required to take the said aspect into consideration at
the time of drawing the final decree. The Trial Court was,
therefore, not justified in allowing the application.
NC: 2025:KHC:50013
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting
respondents submits that no such objection was raised on
behalf of the petitioners herein the final decree proceedings,
and on the other hand, in the final decree proceedings,
objection was filed contending that Smt. Jana Bai was being
taken care of by the petitioners herein during her life time, and
therefore, her share is required to be allotted to them.
7. It is not in dispute that Smt. K.Jana Bai who is party
respondent no.2 in FDP.No.25035/2011 was allotted one share
in the suit schedule properties under the preliminary decree
that was passed in O.S.No.11210/1998. In RFA.No.2157/2010
only the share that was allotted to the wife and children of
K.Kashinath Rao who is the brother of K.Jana Bai was modified
and the share that was allotted to K.Jana Bai in the preliminary
decree that was passed in O.S.No.11210/1998 stood unaltered.
8. It is not in dispute that K.Jana Bai had separated from
her husband and she had died issueless. Therefore, after her
death, her siblings would be entitled for equal share in her
estate. Petitioners herein are the legal representatives of
K.Vittal Rao who is one of the brother of Jana Bai. The Trial
NC: 2025:KHC:50013
HC-KAR
Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter vide the
order impugned, has enlarged the share of the parties to the
preliminary decree and has held that after the death of K.Jana
Bai, her bothers viz., K.Kashinath Rao, K.Vittal Rao,
K.Subramani Rao and K.Ganesh Rao, are entitled for 1/4th
share each in the suit schedule properties. I do not find any
illegality in the said order passed by the Trial Court.
9. In the objections filed on behalf of the petitioners herein,
it is stated that in view of the modified decree passed in
RFA.No.2157/2010, it was not open for the Trial Court to re-
open the shares allotted to the parties and modify the
preliminary decree. It is relevant to note here that, in
RFA.No.2157/2010, the share which was allotted to Smt.
K.Jana Bai was not modified and the modification of shares in
RFA.No.2157/2010 was only in respect to the wife and children
of late K.Kashinath Rao who is one of the brother of Smt.
K.Jana Bai. After the death of K.Jana Bai, the Trial Court has
held that her four brothers including K.Kashinath Rao are
entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties
instead of 1/5th share.
NC: 2025:KHC:50013
HC-KAR
10. The contention urged before this Court by the learned
Counsel for the petitioners that during the lifetime of K.Jana
Bai, she has executed sale deeds in respect of the suit schedule
property in favour of third parties was not at all urged before
the Trial Court or not raised in the objections filed on behalf of
the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this writ
petition does not merit consideration. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
KK
