Karnataka High Court
Sri. R Sreenivasan vs Smt. Bhagyalakshmi on 7 July, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24350
RFA No. 862 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 862 OF 2017 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. R.SREENIVASAN
S/O. LATE. S.RANGASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT 36, SHALOM COTTAGE,
5TH CROSS, P & T LAYOUT,
HORAMAVU, BANGALORE-560 043.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. DR.PRAJWAL ARADHYA., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI
D/O. M.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR N 2. SMT. MANJULA
Location: HIGH D/O. M.RAMAIAH,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
3. SMT. GIRIJA
D/O. M.RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
4. SRI. M.RAMAIAH
S/O. LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S OF
R4 IS BOUGHT ON RECORD AS R1 TO R3,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24350
RFA No. 862 of 2017
HC-KAR
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT HORAMAVU VILLAGE,
BANASWADI POST,
BENGALURU-560 043.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 TO 3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
R1 TO 3 ARE LR'S OF DECEASED R4 V/O DATED:07.07.2025)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
96 OF THE CPC.
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Sri.Prajwal Aradhya., counsel on behalf of Sri.S.Kalyan
Basavaraj., for the appellant has appeared in person.
Notice to the respondents was ordered on 30.07.2018. A
perusal of the office note depicts that respondents 1 to 3 are
served and unrepresented. They have neither engaged the
services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in
person.
2. The short facts are these:
The plaintiffs filed a suit against their father Ramaiah in
O.S.No.15923/2003 on the file of XXVIII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH-29) seeking
NC: 2025:KHC:24350
HC-KAR
partition and separate possession. On the trial of the action, the
Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2009
decreed the suit. The appellant has assailed the Judgment and
Decree of the Trial Court in this appeal on several grounds as
set-out in the memorandum of appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellant in presenting his
arguments strenuously urged that the suit filed by the plaintiffs
against their father seeking partition and separate possession is
a collusive suit. He contended that the father Ramaiah had sold
the property in favor of appellant's vendor prior to filing of the
suit and the appellant's vendor being the pre-suit purchaser
was not made as a party to the original suit. He argued by
saying that the Division Bench of this Court in
R.F.A.No.686/2017 C/w. 759/2017 has set-aside the Judgment
and Decree dated 29.06.2009 in O.S.N.15923/2003 and the
Final Decree dated 19.03.2016 in F.D.P.No.25001/2010 and the
suit in O.S.No.15923/2003 was restored. Counsel further
submits that after the remand, the suit has been dismissed for
non-prosecution. Counsel therefore, submits that an
appropriate order may be passed.
NC: 2025:KHC:24350
HC-KAR
4. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal
papers with care.
5. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs filed a suit
against their father seeking partition and separate possession.
Suffice it to note that Ramaiah had sold the property in favor of
appellant's vendor before filing of the suit. Though the
appellant's vendor was pre-suit purchaser, he was not made as
a party to the proceedings in O.S.No.15923/2003. However,
the Trial Court decreed the suit and granted share. This is
unsustainable in law. The appellant's vendor was pre-suit
purchaser and the property was not available for partition.
Moreover, after the remand, the suit has been dismissed for
non-prosecution. A perusal of the E-court status of
O.S.No.15923/2003 reflects that after the remand, the
plaintiffs did not appear before the Trial Court and hence, the
suit has been dismissed for non-prosecution on 08.03.2019.
The Judgment and Decree dated 29.06.2009 passed by
the XXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall,
Bengaluru in O.S.No.15923/2003 is set-aside.
6. Resultantly, the Regular First Appeal is allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:24350
HC-KAR
Because of the disposal of the appeal, the pending
interlocutory applications if any are disposed of.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
MRP
