[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Jayamma vs Sri Narayanagowda on 12 February, 2026

                                        -1-
                                                      NC: 2026:KHC:8711
                                                   RFA No. 1460 of 2018


              HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                     DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                      BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
               REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1460 OF 2018 (DEC/INJ)


              BETWEEN:

              1.     SMT. JAYAMMA
                     DEAD BY LRS

              1(a) SMT. VANAJA
                   D/O LATE RAMAIAH,
                   W/O VENKATESH,
                   AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
                   R/AT GORAVIGERE,
                   KANNAMANGALA POST,
                   BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
                   BENGALURU-560 067.

              1(b) SRI. VINODKUMAR R.
                   S/O LATE RAMAIAH,
Digitally          AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
signed by          R/AT THIRUMALASHETTAHALLI,
PRAMILA G V
                   BEHIND BHAVANI VIDYAMANDIRA,
Location:          SAMETHANAHALLI POST,
HIGH COURT
OF                 HOSKOTE TALUK,
KARNATAKA          BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

              2.     SMT. PADMAMMA
                     W/O LATE BEERAPPA,
                     D/O LATE VENKATARAMEGOWDA,
                     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
                     R/AT THIRUMALASHETTY HALLI,
                     ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI,
                     HOSKTOE TALUK,
                     BENGALURU DISTRICT-560 067.
                               -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:8711
                                      RFA No. 1460 of 2018


HC-KAR




3.     SMT. NARAYANAMMA
       W/O LATE VENKATARAMEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

4.     SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI @ BHAGYA
       SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS

(a)    KESHAVA
       S/O LATE BHAGYALAKSHMI,
       AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,

(b)    HARISH
       S/O LATE BHAGYALAKSHMI,
       AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,

       APPELLANTS NO.4(a) AND (b)
       ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR
       GRANDFATHER AND
       NATURAL GUARDIAN
       SMT. NARAYANAMMA.

5.     SMT. SHASHIKALA
       W/O RAJESH,
       D/O LATE VENKATARAMEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

       THE APPELLANT NO.3 TO 5 ARE
       R/AT CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
       BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
       BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
       BENGALURU DISTRICT.
                                             ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. K. SHIVASHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI. NARAYANAGOWDA
       S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                             -3-
                                       NC: 2026:KHC:8711
                                  RFA No. 1460 of 2018


HC-KAR




2.   SRI. RAMACHANDRA
     S/O LATE DASEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

3.   SRI. BACHEGOWDA
     S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

4.   SMT. RENUKA
     D/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
     W/O LATE SRINIVAS,
     AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

5.   SRI. THIMMARAYE GOWDA
     S/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

6.   SMT. SAVITHA
     D/O LATE DASEGOWDA,
     W/O MANJUNATH,
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

     R1 TO R6 R/AT
     CHANNASANDRA VILLAGE,
     BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
     BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
     BENGALURU DITRICT.

7.   SRI. SAMPANGIRAME GOWDA
     S/O LATE THIMMARAYA GOWDA,
     SINCE DECEASED BY LR'S

7(a) AMARANARAYANA
     S/O LATE SAMPANGI RAMEGOWDA T.,
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

     R/AT RING ROAD, CHANNASANDRA,
     NEAR ISHAMISTRY APARTMENT,
     GATE NO.2 & 3 BETWEEN
     SRI. CHANDRA NIVAS,
     BENGALURU.
                           -4-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:8711
                                   RFA No. 1460 of 2018


HC-KAR




7(b) RAVI C.S.
     S/O LATE SAMPANGI RAMEGOWDA T.,
     R/AT NO.20, HARIPRIYA NILAYA,
     PRUTHVI LAYOUT,
     CHANNASANDRA,
     NEAR G.B. RAMAYYA LAYOUT,
     BENGALURU-560 067.

7(c)   MURALIDARA C.S.
       S/O LATE SAMPANGI RAMEGOWDA T.,
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
       NEAR ISHAMISTRY APARTMENT,
       GATE NO.2 & 3 BETWEEN
       SRI. CHANDRA NIVAS,
       BENGALURU.

8.     THE SPECIAL ADDL. LAND
       ACQUISITION OFFICER
       BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
       T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
       BENGALURU-560 020.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. MUNIRAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5;
    SRI. SIDDAPPA V.D., ADVOCATE FOR R7(a);
    R7(b), R7(c) AND R6 ARE SERVED;
    AGA FOR R8 IS ABSENT)

     THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 RULE 1 AND
SEC.96 OF CPC., 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 21.04.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.169/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE (RURAL)
DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING       THE SUIT    FOR
DECLARATION.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                  -5-
                                                NC: 2026:KHC:8711
                                             RFA No. 1460 of 2018


 HC-KAR




CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE


                        ORAL JUDGMENT

This case was listed today for further hearing. On the

previous occasion, the matter was heard in part and there was

no representation on behalf of the respondents. Today also,

there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

2. The Court has considered the contentions raised at

the bar and perused the records and proceeded to pass the

following order.

3. The plaintiffs/appellants have produced six

documents along with the application filed under Order XLI Rule

27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the documents

sought to be produced are stated to be the certified copies on

perusal of the records, it is noticed that the documents are not

the certified copies but appear to be the xerox copies of the

certified copies.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that

as per the memorandum of partition dated 15.05.1980, if

Survey No.81/1 (not 81/2 as mentioned in the partition deed)

NC: 2026:KHC:8711

HC-KAR

is taken as the property allotted to the share of the plaintiffs,

the total extent allotted to the share of Sri.Venkataramegowda

(father of the plaintiffs) would be 76 guntas and the extent of

the property allotted to the share of the plaintiffs father's

brother, Sri.Dasegowda would be 114 guntas and the share of

another brother, Sri.Sampangiramegowda would be 109

guntas.

5. It is urged that Sy.No.81/2 which is wrongly

mentioned in the Memorandum of Partition is not the family

property and same is not allotted to the share of the plaintiff's

father and what is allotted is Survey No.81/1 and same is

wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.81/2 in the Memorandum of

Partition dated 15.05.1980.

6. In the background it is urged that the Survey

No.81/1 is indeed the property allotted to the share of the

plaintiffs' father and not Survey No.81/2 as mentioned in the

memorandum of partition.

7. It is also submitted that Survey No.81/2 (Ex.P.20)

stands in the name of Sri.Thimmaiah S/o Sri.Ramaiah, who is

not the family member.

NC: 2026:KHC:8711

HC-KAR

8. It is also urged that the defendants have effected a

partition under a registered partition deed dated 03.03.2014

and there they make reference to partition dated 15.05.1980

and there is no reference to Survey No.81/1 in the said deed

while effecting partition of the properties allotted to their

respective shares in the family partition of 1980.

9. In addition, it is also urged that the defendants

have entered into a Joint Development Agreement in respect of

their properties allotted to their share under the partition of the

year 1980. In the said agreement, there is no reference to

Survey No.81/1. By referring to these documents, it is urged

that the Survey No.81/1 was not the property allotted to the

share of the defendants. It is further submitted that though

Survey No.81/2 is referred to in the memorandum of partition

dated 15.05.1980, said Sy.No.81/2 could not have been the

subject matter of the partition as i.e., not the joint family

property.

10. It is noticed that the defendants remained ex-parte

before the trial Court and did not file the written statement

NC: 2026:KHC:8711

HC-KAR

before the trial Court. Before this Court, there is no

representation on their behalf.

11. The Court has considered the contentions and finds

some merit in the contentions raised by the appellants. It is

noticed that the reference is made to memorandum of partition

dated 15.05.1980 in the documents executed among the

defendants namely, in the registered partition deed dated

03.03.2014. It is also noticed that the suit is primarily

dismissed on the ground that the memorandum of partition

dated 15.05.1980 was not produced.

12. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view

that the appeal has to be allowed and application of production

of documents should also be allowed and the matter has to be

remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

13. The plaintiffs/appellants are at liberty to summon

the memorandum of partition deed dated 15.05.1980 from

wherever it is, and for any reason if it is not found, the

plaintiffs/appellants are at liberty to adduce secondary evidence

of the memorandum of partition dated 15.05.1980 subject to

NC: 2026:KHC:8711

HC-KAR

fulfilling the requirements relating to production of secondary

evidence.

14. The defendants are also permitted to file written

statement and lead evidence.

15. The trial Court shall look into the additional

documents subject to its admissibility proof and relevance.

16. It is made clear that nothing is expressed on the

merits of the matter and all contentions kept open. Hence, the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated

21.04.2018 passed in O.S.No.169/2014 on the

file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set

aside.

(iii) The matter is remitted to the trial Court for

fresh consideration.

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8711

HC-KAR

(iv) The plaintiffs/appellants are at liberty to

produce the certified copies of the sale deeds

and the partition deeds. Joint Development

Agreement referred to in the application filed

under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil

Procedure.

(v) The plaintiffs/appellants are also at liberty to