Karnataka High Court
Sri. A Venkat Rao vs Sri. A Muralidhara on 17 November, 2025
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:47064
WP No. 16829 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO. 16829 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI A. VENKAT RAO
S/O LATE SRI MADHAPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT SHARADHA NILAYA
MAVINAKATTE CHENNAITHODY
VILLAGE AND POST
BANTWAL TALUK D.K
SINCE DECEASED BY LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES
1a. SMT. SAROJA V RAO
W/O LATE A VENKAT RAO
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
1b. SRI NAGENDRA RAO
S/O LATE A VENKAT RAO
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
Digitally 1c. SRI THILAK
signed by S/O LATE A VENKAT RAO
NANDINI M S
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 1d. SRI VINOD RAO
KARNATAKA S/O LATE A VENKAT RAO
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
PETITIONERS 1a TO 1d ARE
RESIDING AT SHARADHA NILAYA
MAVINAKATTE CHENNAITHODY
VILLAGE AND POST
BANTWAL TALUK D K - 574 219.
1e. SMT. SANDHYA RAO
W/O SURSH BHAT
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:47064
WP No. 16829 of 2021
HC-KAR
KUNTADY HOUSE
KUNTADY VILLAGE AND POST
KARKALA TALUK - 574 102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.S. MAHENDRA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI A. MURALIDHARA
S/O A. THIMMAPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
2. SRI A. SRIDHARA
S/O A. THIMMAPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
3. SRI A. KESHAVARAJ
S/O A. THIMMAPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
4. SRI A. RAJALAXMI
D/O A. THIMMAPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
5. SRI A. VADHIRAJA
S/O A THIMMAPPAYYA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT BLOCK NO.III
SITE NO.551, KATIPALLA
MANGALORE D.K - 575 001.
6. SMT. LAXMI
W/O RAMESH RAO
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT S.S. RAO B-104
SIDDHI TOWERS
MALEGAON STAND
PANCHAVATI NASIK
MAHARASHTRA - 422 003.
7. SRI NARAYANA
S/O KESHAVA RAO
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
SANARPATTY VILLAGE AND POST
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:47064
WP No. 16829 of 2021
HC-KAR
DINDIGAL TALUK AND DISTRICT
TAMILNADU - 624 003.
8. SRI VENUGOPAL
S/O KESHAVA RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
KHANDEMALA NEAR SAVITHA NAGAR
CPO 4TH NASIK MAHARASHTRA - 422 003.
9. SMT. JANAKI
W/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/AT BAILU MANE COMPOUND
NEAR PVS KALAKUNJA KODIALBAIL
MANGALORE D.K. - 575 003.
10. SMT. SARASWATHI
W/O M.A. MADHAVA RAO
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO.721 58TH CROSS
II STAGE KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE - 560 078.
11. SRI H.R. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O SRI H. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
12. SRI H.R. THIMMAPPAYYA
S/O SRI H. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
13. SRI H.R. SRINIVASA
S/O SRI H. RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
14. SMT. VARALAXMI
D/O SRI H RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
15. SMT. TULASI
D/O SRI H RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
16. SMT. CHANDRIKA
D/O SRI H. RAMACHANDRA RAO
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:47064
WP No. 16829 of 2021
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS NO.11 TO 16 ARE AT
1-6-27/3/A ROAD NO.37 NEW NO.1-6-43
THIMMAPPA NILAYA
CHAITANYA PURI COLONY
DILKUSHNAGAR HYDERABAD
ANDRAPRADESH - 500 060.
17. SMT. VASANTHI
W/O PADMANABHA UPADHYA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/AT L/G-21 3RD MAIN ROAD
I BLOCK RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR
MYSORE 22 KARNATAKA STATE.
18. SRI B.K. SRINIVAS RAO
S/O KRISHNAVENI
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.165 VTH CROSS
SRI VENKATESHWARA NAGAR LAYOUT
JAKKUR BANGALORE - 560 064.
19. SRI MADHAVA RAO
S/O KRISHNAVENI
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT BAILU MANE HOSUE
NEAR PVS KALAKUNJA
MANGALORE - 575 003.
20. SRI B RAJASHEKARA
S/O KRISHNAVENI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.13 IST FLOOR
K V LANE IST CROSS
OPP RADHAKRISHNA DELUXE LODGE
COTTONPET CROSS, AKKIPET
BANGALORE - 560 053
KARNATAKA STATE.
21. SRI B.K. SUDHEENDRA
S/O KRISHNAVENI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13, 1ST FLOOR,
K V LANE, FIRST CROSS,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:47064
WP No. 16829 of 2021
HC-KAR
OPP. RADHAKRISHNA DELUXE LODGE,
COTTONPET CROSS, AKKIPET
BANGALORE - 560 053.
22. SRI B. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O KRISHNAVENI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT BAILU MANE HOUSE
NEAR PVS KALAKUNJA
MANGALORE - 575 003.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SWAMINI GANESH MOHANAMLAL, ADV., FOR
SRI SANDEEP S. PATIL, ADV., FOR R-1, R-4, R-8 & R-10;
R-5, R-6, R-7, R-9, R-11, R-12, R-13, R-14, R-15,
R-16, R-17 AND R-22 SRVED & UNREPRESENTED
V/O/DTD 15.09.2025 NOTICE TO R-2, R-3,
R-20 & R-21 ARE H/S, NOTICE TO R-18 & R-19 ARE D/W)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.
31.05.2021 PASSED I NIA NO.VIII, UNDER ORDER 20 RULE 18 READ
WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC TO DRAW AN ADDITIONAL / FURTHER
PRELIMINARY DECREE BY INCLUDING THE APPLICATION SCHEDULE
PROPERTY AND TO CARVE OUT TOTAL 1/2 SHARE TO THE
PETITIONERS AND R-1 TO 5 IN FDP NO.24/2014 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BANTWAL i.e., ANNX-J
AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOWED THE APPLICATION AND INCLUDED
APPLICATION SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN THE FDP NO.24/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BANTWAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is filed with a prayer to set-aside the order dated
31.05.2021 passed on IA No.8 filed under Order XX Rule 18
NC: 2025:KHC:47064
HC-KAR
read with Section 151 of CPC in FDP No.24/2014 by the Court
of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The suit in OS No.6/2008 was filed before the
jurisdictional Civil Court at Bantwal seeking the relief of
partition and separate possession of the suit schedule
properties. The said suit was decreed on 11.11.2011 and
accordingly, a preliminary decree was drawn. Final decree
proceedings in FDP No.24/2014 was thereafter initiated before
the Trial Court and in the said proceedings, an application was
filed on behalf of the petitioners under Order XX Rule 18 read
with Section 151 of CPC to include certain immovable
properties which were left out in the preliminary decree passed
in OS No.6/2008. The said application was opposed by filing
objections and the Trial Court vide the order impugned has
rejected the said application, namely, IA No.8. Being aggrieved
by the same, petitioners are before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
properties which are sought to be included in the final decree
NC: 2025:KHC:47064
HC-KAR
proceedings are joint family properties which were left out in
the preliminary decree passed in OS No.06/2008. Petitioners
had filed separate suit in OS No.365/2012 before the
jurisdictional Civil Court at Mangaluru seeking the relief of
partition and separate possession of the properties which is
now sought to be included in the preliminary decree passed in
OS No.06/2008. OS No.365/2012 was dismissed with an
observation that the said suit is barred by res judicata and the
remedy open to the plaintiffs in OS No.365/2012 is to make a
claim in respect of the said properties in the final decree
proceedings. It is under these circumstances, IA No.8 has been
filed which has been rejected by the Trial Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents has argued in support of the order impugned. She
submits that petitioners were all along aware that the
properties in question were not included in OS No.06/2008.
Instead of filing necessary application in the said suit, they had
filed a separate suit in OS No.365/2012, which is now rejected.
Having suffered an order in OS No.365/2012, belatedly they
have filed application IA No.8 in the final decree proceedings
NC: 2025:KHC:47064
HC-KAR
and Trial Court has rightly rejected the said application. She
submits that properties which are left out in a preliminary
decree cannot be included in the final decree proceedings and
in support of her contention, she has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Sri Channaveerappa Gowda vs. Sri Renukappa Gowda
and Others - 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 12228.
6. It is not in dispute that properties which are now sought
to be included in the final decree proceedings arising out of OS
No.6/2008 were not part of the preliminary decree passed in
OS No.6/2008. The material on record would go to show that
petitioners who are defendants in OS No.06/2008 had filed a
separate suit in OS No.365/2012 before the jurisdictional Civil
Court at Mangaluru, seeking partition and separate possession
of the left out properties in OS No.6/2008. The jurisdictional
Civil Court has dismissed OS No.365/2012 by judgment and
decree dated 02.02.2019 and in the said suit, it has been held
that defendant Nos.5 and 7 in OS No.365/2012 have proved
that the suit is hit by doctrine of res judicata as provided under
Section 11 of CPC. Defendant Nos.5 and 7 in OS No.365/2012
NC: 2025:KHC:47064
HC-KAR
are plaintiffs in OS No.6/2008. The jurisdictional Civil Court
while dismissing OS No.365/2012 has observed that remedy to
the plaintiffs in OS No.365/2012, who are the petitioners herein
is not lost and they can make a claim for their rights in the final
decree proceedings arising out of OS No.6/2008. It appears
that it is under these circumstances, petitioners have filed IA
No.8 in FDP No.24/2014, which arises out of OS No.6/2008.
7. It is trite that final decree proceedings is continuation of a
suit and suit for partition comes to an end only when final
decree is drawn. This Court in the case of Smt. Sokkamma
vs. H.N. Sonnappa and Others - WP No.12689/2021
disposed of on 28.10.2025 having referred to the judgment of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Channaveerappa Gowda vs. Renukappa Gowda - 2014
(3) KCCR 2214 and placing reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Phoolchand and
Another vs. Gopal Lal - AIR 1967 SC 1470, Ganduri
Koteshwaramma and Anr vs. Chakiriyanadi and Anr -
(2011) 9 SCC 788 and S. Satnam Singh and Ors. vs.
Surender Kaur and Anr. - (2009) 2 SCC 562, has held that
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47064
HC-KAR
a property which is left out in a preliminary decree can be
included in the final decree proceedings.
8. In the present case, the jurisdictional Civil Court while
dismissing OS No.365/2012 has made a specific observation
that the remedy available to the petitioners is in the final
decree proceedings which arises out of OS No.6/2008.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not
justified in rejecting IA No.8 filed on behalf of the petitioners.
Accordingly, the following order:-
9. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 31.05.2021
passed on IA No.8 filed under Order XX Rule 18 read with
Section 151 of CPC in FDP No.24/2014 by the Court of Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, is set-aside and consequently,
the prayer made in IA No.8 is granted.
10. All contentions urged on behalf of both the parties are left
open.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:47064
HC-KAR
11. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending
interlocutory application if any, does not survive for
consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
DN
