Karnataka High Court
Sri K N Manjunath vs Sri T Ramanna on 10 November, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
RFA No. 2303 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2303 OF 2023 (PAR/DEC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K.N.MANJUNATH
S/O SRI.NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.2152/16
WATER TANK ROAD
'D' BLOCK, NEAR CORPORATION BANK
SAHAKARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560092
2. SMT. N.NAGAMANI
W/O SRI.SRIDHARA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.2391, 'E' BLOCK
SAHAKARANAGAR
Digitally signed
by CHAITHRA A BENGALURU -560092
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. SRI.K.M.CHETHAN
S/O SRI.K.N.MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.2152/16
WATER TANK ROAD
'D' BLOCK, NEAR CORPORATION BANK
SAHAKARANAGAR
BENGALURU -560092
4. SRI.B.M.DEVARAJU
S/O SRI.MALLAPPA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
RFA No. 2303 of 2023
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NO.354, 'F' BLOCK, 'D' BLOCK
NEAR CORPORATION BANK
SAHAKARANAGARA
BENGALURU - 92
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.G.KRISHNA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI.T.RAMANNA
S/O LATE SRI.THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
2. SRI.T.MUNIVENKATASWAMY
S/O LATE THIMMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
3. SRI.MUNIYAPPA
S/O SRI.CHIKKAVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
4. SRI.VENKATASHAMAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
5. SRI.MUNISHAMAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
6. SRI.VENKATESHAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
7. SRI.CHIKKAMUNEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
RFA No. 2303 of 2023
HC-KAR
8. SRI.MUNIRAJA
S/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 8 ARE
RESIDENT OF HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
BENGALURU
9. SMT.AKKAYAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKAVENKATAPPA
W/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDENT OF AGRAHARA VILLAGE
JAKKUR POST
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
10. SRI.C.SRINIVAS
S/O LATE CHKKAYELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDENT OF
CHIKKADASARAHALLI VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
11 M/S. MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES
CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF
KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959
REGISTERED NO.B-ARB-1/REGN/2243/72-23
PRESENTLY OFFICE AT NO.842, A BLOCK
SAHAKARANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 092
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
RFA No. 2303 of 2023
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
MR.A.M.SIDDESH GOWDA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H.M.MANJESH, ADVOCATE FOR R.6 TO R.8;
SRI.ANANDA H.C., ADVOCATE FOR R.10;
SRI.PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR R.11;
R.1 TO R.5 - SERVED;
V/O/D 27.10.2025 NOTICE TO R.9 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.10.2023 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.660/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI DECREEING THE SUIT FOR
PARTITION AND DECLARATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal by the appellants/defendant Nos.10 to 13 is
directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated
13.10.2023 passed in O.S. NO.660/2012 by the Additional Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby the said suit filed by
the respondent No.10/plaintiff against the appellants/defendant
Nos.10 to 13 and remaining defendant Nos.1 to 9 for partition and
separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
HC-KAR
properties was decreed in favour of 10th respondent - plaintiff
against the appellants and other defendants for partition,
declaration and other reliefs.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for respondent No.10/plaintiff and learned counsel
for the remaining parties and perused the materials on record.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.11 --
impleading applicant filed an application - I.A.No.3 seeking
impleadment on the ground that he has purchased some of the suit
schedule properties from the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13
and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated
27.10.2025.
4. A perusal of the materials on record, it would indicate that
respondent No.10/plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking
declaration, partition and separate possession and other reliefs
against appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 and other defendants
in relation to the suit schedule immovable properties. The said suit
having been contested by the defendants, the Trial Court framed
the following issues.
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
HC-KAR
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff and
defendants No.1 to 9 are the members of Hindu
undivided joint family and the suit schedule properties
are their joint family properties?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the plaintiff
is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd
share in the suit properties?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the sale
deed dated 22.09.2005, 27.11.1998, 11.05.1999 and
sale deed executed by defendant No.15 in favour of
defendant No.16 dated 10.05.2012 are not binding on
the plaintiff's share?
4. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the
defendant Nos.1 to 8 are absolute owners under the
panchayath parikath since 1994?
5. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the
defendant Nos.1 to 8 sold the suit property in favour of
defendants No.11 to 13?
6. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the
suit is not properly valued and Court Fee paid is
insufficient?
7. Whether the defendant No.12 proves that the
suit is barred by law of limitation?
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
HC-KAR
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as
sought for?
9. What order or decree?"
5. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and documentary
evidence at Exs.P.1 to P.73 were marked on his behalf. It is a
matter of record as can be seen through the order sheet
maintained by the Trial Court that the appellants - defendant No.10
to 13 partly cross-examined P.W.1 and after having been
discharged on the ground of no further cross-examination, P.W.1
was recalled at the instance of the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to
13 and the matter was posted on 16.09.2023. On that day, since
the Trial Court refused to accede to the request of the appellants -
defendant Nos.10 to 13 for grant of time for further cross
examination of P.W.1 and posted the matter for arguments and
proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the respondent No.10 -
plaintiff against the defendants. It is also an undisputed fact that
after discharging P.W.1 from further cross-examination, the
appellants or other defendants did not adduce oral or documentary
evidence in support of their defence.
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
HC-KAR
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants - defendant
Nos.10 to 13 submits that the inability and omission on the part of
the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 to further cross-examine
P.W.1 on 16.09.2023 was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable
circumstances and sufficient cause and that the further
cross-examination of P.W.1 is extremely vital, crucial and
necessary for the purpose of examining the defence of the
appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13. It is further submitted that after
completing the further cross-examination of P.W.1, the
appellants/defendant Nos.10 to 13 intended to adduce oral and
documentary evidence in support of their defence and an
opportunity in this regard has not been provided by the trial Court.
It is, therefore, submitted that if the impugned judgment and decree
passed by the Trial Court is set-aside and the matter remitted back
to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law,
the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 would complete the further
cross examination of P.W.1 on a date to be fixed by the Trial Court
and also adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their
defence and co-operate with the Trial Court for disposal of the suit
afresh in accordance with law.
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
HC-KAR
7. Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent No.10 -
plaintiff submits that the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 did not
exercise due diligence and continuously procrastinate/protract the
proceedings for 11 years and the Trial Court has left with no option
but to reject the request for further cross-examination and has
proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree, which does
not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.11/impleaded
applicant submits that respondent No.11 having purchased the suit
schedule portion of the suit schedule properties prior to the
institution of the suit is entitled to be impleaded as an additional
defendant in the suit and an opportunity is to be provided to the
impleading applicant/respondent No.11 to file its written statement
and contest the suit on merits and appropriate orders may be
passed in the case.
9. The only point that arises for consideration in the present
appeal is as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed
by the Trial Court warrants interference by this Court in the present
appeal.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
HC-KAR
10. The aforesaid stated facts and circumstances clearly
indicate that it is an undisputed fact that 10th respondent - plaintiff
examined himself as P.W.1 and was partially cross-examined by
the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 and the matter was set
down for further cross-examination of P.W.1 on 16.09.2023. It is a
specific assertion of the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 that
due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient
cause, the request of the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13 could
not further cross-examine P.W.1 on 16.09.2023 and one more
opportunity is to be provided to the appellants - defendant Nos.10
to 13 to further cross-examine P.W.1 and the appellants -
defendant Nos.10 to 13 would co-operate with the Trial Court in this
regard. It is also a matter of record that after closing the further
cross -examination of P.W.1 on 16.09.2023, the Trial Court, which
ought to have posted the matter for evidence of the defendants,
straight away posted the matter for final arguments, which is a
patent procedural illegality, which would vitiate the entire
proceedings and the impugned judgment and decree. Under these
circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice
oriented approach and set-aside the impugned judgment and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
HC-KAR
decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for
reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by imposing certain
terms and conditions upon the appellants - defendant Nos.10 to 13
by imposing a cost of Rs.50,000 on the appellants - defendant
Nos.10 to 13 to be payable to respondent No.10 - plaintiff on the
date of appearance before the trial Court.
11. Insofar as the claim of the Impleading respondent
No.11/purchaser is concerned, necessary directions are to be
issued to the Trial Court to implead respondent No.11/purchaser as
additional defendant No.14 and issue further directions for
expeditious disposal of the suit.
12. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The appeal is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and decree
dated 13.10.2023 passed in O.S.No.660/2012 on
the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and
J.M.F.C, Devanahalli is hereby set-aside subject to
payment of cost of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent
No.10 - plaintiff before the Trial Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
HC-KAR
(iii) The parties are directed to appear
before the Trial court on 08.12.2025 without
awaiting any further notice from the Trial Court.
(iv) The Appellants - defendant Nos.10 to
13 shall pay the aforesaid cost of Rs.50,000/- to
the respondent No.10 - plaintiff on 08.12.2025.
(v) On 08.12.2025, the Trial Court is
directed to implead respondent No.11 as additional
defendant No.14 and respondent No.10 - plaintiff
shall carry out necessary amendment and file
amended plaint on that day.
(vi) Respondent No.11 - defendant No.14
shall file written statement on 08.12.2025 without
seeking any adjournment under any circumstances
whatsoever.
(vii) Immediately upon respondent No.11 -
defendant No.14 filing the written statement on
08.12.2025, the Trial Court shall frame additional
issues and proceed further in the matter and
dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible at
any rate within a period of six months from
08.12.2025 i.e., on or before 30.06.2026.
(viii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the
parties to file appropriate interlocutory applications
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:45447
HC-KAR
seeking suitable reliefs, which shall be considered
by the Trial Court in accordance with law.
(ix) All rival contentions and all aspects of
the matter are kept open and no opinion is
expressed on the same.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
NBM
