[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Vijendra vs Sri Praveen on 16 December, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53427
RSA No. 274 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 274 OF 2025 (PAR/INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VIJENDRA,
S/O LATE SRI. SHIVAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHIVAJI ROAD,
BESIDES DEEPAK NILAYA,
SHIVAMOGGA-577202.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. PRAVEEN,
S/O LATE SRI. NAGARAJA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
by DEVIKA M RESIDING AT SHIVAJI ROAD,
Location: HIGH BESIDES DEEPAK NILAYA,
COURT OF SHIVAMOGGA-577202.
KARNATAKA
2. SMT. GEETHABAI,
W/O LATE SRI. NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
TAILOR,
RESIDING AT SHIVAJI ROAD,
BESIDES DEEPAK NILAYA,
SHIVAMOGGA-577202.
3. SMT. MUKTHA BAI,
W/O LATE SRI. D. NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53427
RSA No. 274 of 2025
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT BEHIND GOVERNMENT
HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
BASAVANAUGDI 1ST CROSS ,
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
4. SMT. MEENAKSHI,
W/O SRI. RAMAKRISHNA BAGARE,
D/O OF LATE SRI. SHIVAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SRI RENUKA DEVI KRUPA,
4TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, VINOBHANAGARA,
OPPOSITE TO KODAPANA FACTORY,
DAVANAGERE-577006.
5. SMT. S. MALA,
W/O SRI. SRINVASA RAO,
D/O LATE SRI. SHIVAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SHIVAJI ROAD,
SIDDAIAH COMPOUND,
SIDDAIAH ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA-577202.
6. SMT. MANJULA,
W/O LATE SRI. ARUN MUDHAKAR,
D/O LATE SRI. SHIVAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SUBASHNAGAR,
4TH CROSS, BHADRAVATHI-577245.
7. SMT. SAKAMMA,
W/O SRI. MOHAN ROAD,
D/O LATE SRI. SHIVAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BOMMAHALLI VILLAGE,
MUDAGOD TALUK,
HAVERI DISTRICT-581349.
8. SRI. KIRAN,
S/O LATE SRI. MURALI MALADKAR AND
LATE SMT. KASTHURI,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:53427
RSA No. 274 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.7/80,
SUBHASHNAGAR, DHANADELLI,
KARAWARA DISTRICT-581321.
9. SRI. BASAVARAJA,
S/O LATE SRI. SHIVAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
TAILOR,
RESIDENT OF PREETHAM TAILORS,
JYOTHI CLINIC, OPPOSITE 1ST CROSS,
GANDHI BAZAAR,
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
10. SRI. DEVARAJA,
S/O LATE SRI. SHIVAJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
TAILOR,
RESIDING AT NO.19, H-BLOCK,
BONMMABNAKATTE BADAVANE,
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
11. SMT. THULASA BAI,
W/O SRI. NAGESH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.57,
KALLAHALLI 2ND STAGE,
A-BLOCK, VINOBHANAGARA,
SHIVAMOGGA-577201.
12. SMT. VIJAYA,
W/O SRI. RAMESH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF CHITRADURGA-577501.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2;
R5, R6, R8, R9, R10, R11 AND R12 ARE SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 13.10.2025,
NOTICE TO R3, R4 AND R7 HELD SUFFICIENT)
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:53427
RSA No. 274 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.11.2024
PASSED IN R.A.NO.97/2024 (OLD R.A.NO.109/2022) ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.10.2022
IN O.S.NO.751/2017 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. This second appeal is filed by plaintiff No.3
challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First
Appellate Court re-apportioning the property. The Trial Court
granted the relief of partition declaring that plaintiff Nos.1 to 5
each are entitled to 1/12th share out of half share of the
deceased Tukaram in the suit schedule property by metes and
bounds. Further, it is declared that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are
entitled together to half share in the half share of the deceased
Nagaraj over the suit schedule property by metes and bounds.
Further, it is declared that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are also
NC: 2025:KHC:53427
HC-KAR
entitled together to 1/12th share in the half share of the
deceased Tukaram in the suit schedule property by metes and
bounds. Further, it is declared that defendant Nos.3 to 8 each
are entitled to 1/12th share out of half share of deceased
Tukaram in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds.
3. The First Appellate Court modified the same on the
appeal filed by the plaintiffs and declared that plaintiff No.1 is
entitled for 1/16th share in the suit schedule property. The
defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for 9/16th share in the suit
schedule property. The defendant Nos.3 to 8 are entitled for
1/16th share each in the suit schedule property and the same is
reduced from 1/12th share to 1/16th share by the First Appellate
Court and hence, the second appeal is filed before this Court.
4. Both the learned counsel submits that the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court may be restored, since the
defendants have not questioned the judgment of the Trial Court
and the judgment of the Trial Court is modified at the instance
of the plaintiffs and there is no dispute between the parties
before this Court for granting of 1/12th share as granted by the
Trial Court.
NC: 2025:KHC:53427
HC-KAR
5. In view of this submission, the judgment of the Trial
Court is restored with the consent of both the learned counsel
for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
and 2.
6. Accordingly, the second appeal is disposed of.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
