Karnataka High Court
Dr. Sujatha K .C vs Smt. Meenakshi on 15 September, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36541
MSA No. 65 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2023 (RO)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. SUJATHA K .C.
D/O LATE G. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT D. NO. 716/A, 9TH CORSS
12TH MAIN, 4TH STAGE
T.K.LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 009
REP BY HER GPA HOLDER
SMT.K.C. TRIVENI, THE 3RD APPELLANT HEREIN.
2. SMT. K.C. HEMAVATHI
D/O LATE G. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
REP BY HER GPA HOLDER
SMT. K.D. TRIVENI
THE 3RD APPELLANT HEREIN.
3. SMT. K.C. TRIVENI
D/O LATE G. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI M S APPELLANTS 2 & 3 ARE R/AT D.NO. 716/A
Location: 3RD COSS, 12TH MAIN, 4TH STAGE
HIGH COURT
OF T.K LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 009
KARNATAKA (THE 3RD APPELLANT PRESENTLY
R/AT NO.369, 12TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN
DOLLARS COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 094.
4. SRI K.N. JAYARAM
S/O LINGEGOWDA @ NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT KATTE KOPPALU VILLAGE
HEGGARU DHAKALE, BANNUR HOBLI
T. NARASIPURA TALUK
PIN 571 110.
...APPELLANTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36541
MSA No. 65 of 2023
HC-KAR
(BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT. MEENAKSHI
W/O GURULINGA
D/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT KIRALU VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK
PIN - 570 010.
2. SRI R. MANIKANTA
S/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT LALITHADRIPURA
VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK, PIN - 570 010.
3. SRI RAMANNA
S/O LATE LINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
4. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA
W/O RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE R/AT
LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE
VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK
PIN - 570 010.
5. SRI GURUPAWAN BANDI
S/O LATE GORALACHARI BANDI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO. 444, 9TH MAIN
7TH CROSS, K.C. LAYOUT
MYSURU, PIN - 570 001.
6. SMT. JYOTHI
D/O CHRISTBEL MATHAYAS
D/O NATHANYALSALINS
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:36541
MSA No. 65 of 2023
HC-KAR
R/AT OFFICER'S QUARTERS
LALITHMAHAL PALACE
MYSURU, PIN - 570 010.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.S. NAGARAJA, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-2;
R-3 & R-4 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION
ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2023
PASSED IN RA NO.329/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU. ALLOWING THE APPEAL
AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
12.03.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.4/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU. REMANDED
THE MATTER TO THE TRAIL COURT TO DISPOSE THE MATTER
AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Sri R.S. Ravi, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri B. S. Nagaraja for respondent Nos.1 and 2
and Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.6.
2. Defendants' second appeal challenging the
judgment of the First Appellate Court remitting the matter to
the trial Court by exercising the power under Order LXI Rule 23
of CPC.
NC: 2025:KHC:36541
HC-KAR
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present appeal are as under:
A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.4/2011 for the relief of
partition and separation possession in respect of the following
properties hereinafter referred as 'suit properties'.
"SCHEDULE PROPERTY DETAILS
Item No.1:-
The land bearing Sy.No.105, measuring 3 acres 21
1/2 guntas, bounded on
East by : Private Land,
West by : Land of Shankara,
South by : Land of Chandrashekarappa,
North by : Land of Chandrashekarappa.
Item No.2:-
The land bearing SY.No.105/1 measuring 6 guntas
acquired by the K.R. Project for Varuna Canal.
The item No.1 and 2 are situated at Sarkarai
Uthanahalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk.
Item No.3.
The land bearing Sy.No.30/7 measuring 1 acre 18
guntas situated at Kiralu Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore
Taluk Bounded on
East by : Canal,
West by : Land of Siddaraju
North by : Land of Shambulingappa and
South by : Land of Shambulingappa.
Item No.4.
The house property consisting Mangalore Tiled in
Janger No.258 assessment No.229 and property No.3
NC: 2025:KHC:36541
HC-KAR
measuring East to West 49 feets and South to North 72
feets including vacant site bounded on
East by : House of Shambanna,
West by : House of Mahadevappa,
North by : House of Mahadevu and
South by : House of Lingaraju
Situated at Lalithadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk."
4. It is contended that suit properties are the joint
family properties and plaintiffs being the children are also
entitled for it as the properties belonging to the grandfather of
the plaintiffs. Suit on contest came to be dismissed.
5. One of the grounds on which the suit came to be
dismissed is that, all the properties possessed by the joint
family were not included in the suit and therefore suit for
partial partition is not maintainable.
6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the
plaintiffs approached the First Appellate Court.
7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after
securing the records re-appreciated the material facts and
following the dictum of this Court in R.F.A.No.842 of 2006
NC: 2025:KHC:36541
HC-KAR
dated 22.12.2020 between Karegowda and others v. Ravi
and others, noted that, if all properties are not included in the
suit, it is always open for the Court to direct the plaintiff to
include all the properties and not to dismiss the suit only on
that ground.
8. Based on the said reasoning, learned Judge in the
First Appellate Court directed the plaintiffs to include all the
properties left behind by their ancestors and common
propositus into common hotchpotch and proceed with the suit
in accordance with law.
9. In that regard, First Appellate Court also set aside
the Judgment of the trial Court and remitted the matter to the
First Appellate Court with liberty for the plaintiffs to include all
the properties to the suit. The validity of the said judgment is
called in question in the second appeal.
10. Sri R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing
the defendants-appellants contended that such a course
NC: 2025:KHC:36541
HC-KAR
adopted by the First Appellate Court is incorrect and sought for
admitting the appeal for further consideration.
11. Per contra, Sri B.S. Nagaraja, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K Prabhakar Rao, learned
counsel for respondent No.6 supports the impugned judgment
of the First Appellate Court.
12. Having heard the arguments of both parties, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such
perusal of the material on record, the First Appellate Court
recorded cogent and convincing reasons as to the course
adopted by the learned trial Judge in not permitting the
plaintiffs to include all the properties when it is of the opinion
that some properties are left out.
13. Further, it was always open for the defendants also
to bring it to the notice of the Court to include properties, which
are left out by the plaintiffs by giving the necessary schedule of
those properties along with written statement.
NC: 2025:KHC:36541
HC-KAR
14. In a suit for partition, there is no strict rule of
pleadings as to the plaintiff and defendant and in a suit for
partition except the subsequent purchasers, all are plaintiffs
and all are defendants.
15. Therefore, the First Appellate Court rightly observed
that the trial Court ought to have permitted the plaintiffs to
include the left out properties and not to dismiss the suit on the
ground of partial partition in view of the legal principles
enunciated by this Court in the case of Karegoda (Supra).
16. Under such circumstances, when there is an
opportunity granted to the plaintiffs to include the properties
and adjudicate the suit on merits, defendants should not have
any objection as the objection of the defendant is basis for the
dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court.
17. In further, if any of the properties i.e, sought to be
now included is not belonging to joint family or the ancestral
property, it is always open for the defendant to raise necessary
objection in the written statement by filing additional written
NC: 2025:KHC:36541
HC-KAR
statement and requesting the Court to frame appropriate issues
thereon.
18. With that liberty for the defendants, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the judgment of the First Appellate
Court needs no interference. Hence, the following:-
ORDER
i. Miscellaneous First Appeal is disposed of.
ii. Parties are at liberty to canvas all favourable
points in their behalf in accordance with law.
iii. Taking note of the fact that the suit is of the
year 2011 the matter needs to be disposed of
as early as possible. In that regard, the parties
shall appear before the Trial Court without
further notice on 08.10.2025.
iv. The observations made by this Court shall not
affect rights of the parties in the fresh trial
before the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
