[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Chandrakanthamma vs Smt G M Nagarathnamma on 6 February, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7127
WP No. 30851 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.30851 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHANDRAKANTHAMMA,
W/O LATE G.M. MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
2. SRI. G. M. SANDEEP,
S/O LATE G.M. MAHADEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
3. SMT. G. M. CHETANA
W/O NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
GUDEMARANAHALLI HAND POST,
HAMLET OF BEERAVARA,
SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
Digitally signed
by RENUKA ...PETITIONERS
Location: HIGH (BY SRI. K. G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SMT. G. M. NAGARATHNAMMA
D/O LATE MALLESHAIAH. G.P,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
GUDEMARANAHALLI HAND POST, SOLUR HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562127.
2. SMT.C.M.SOWBHAGYAMMA
D/O LATE G.P. MALLESHAIAH,
W/O SHIVALIMGAIAH,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7127
WP No. 30851 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT HONNARAYANAHALLI VILLAGE,
THAYAMAGONDLU HOBLI,
NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY
QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2025 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI IN FDP
NO.11/2018 AT ANNEXURE-A, B) ISSUE A WRIT OF IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE LEARNED SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MAGADI TO RECONSIDER THE
MATTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT IN R.S.A NO.564/2018 AND 565/2018
DATED 09.01.2024 AT ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the
order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Magadi in FDP No.11/2018 and for a direction to
reconsider the matter in conformity with the directions
issued by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RSA
NC: 2026:KHC:7127
HC-KAR
No.564/2018 connected with RSA No.565/2018 dated
09.01.2024.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent
No.1 filed a suit against the defendant G. M. Mahadevaiah
and respondent No.2 in OS No.273/2014. The said suit
was partly decreed by the Trial Court. During the
pendency of the suit, i.e., in 2006, G. M. Mahadevaiah
died leaving behind the petitioners as his legal heirs.
Pursuant to the judgment and decree passed by the Trial
Court, petitioners herein preferred appeal in RA
No.58/2014, so also the respondent No.1 in RA
No.61/2014. The District and Sessions Judge,
Ramanagara, after hearing the parties in these two RAs,
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and allowed
the appeal filed by the respondent No.1 by judgment and
decree dated 25.11.2017.
3. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the First
Appellate Court, the petitioners preferred an appeal in RSA
No.564/2018 connected with RSA No.565/2018. This Court
NC: 2026:KHC:7127
HC-KAR
while disposing of the said Regular Second Appeals,
passed an order. The relevant portion of the order of this
Court in Regular Second Appeals proceedings reads as
under:
"The only grievance of the appellant is non
consideration of plea of improvements made to
suit schedule properties. In view of submissions
made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 and
conceded by learned counsel for appellants, this
Court is of the view that present appeal be
disposed of reserving liberty to appellants to
furnish any material before the Final Decree
Proceedings with regard to improvements if any
made by deceased defendant No.1, on production
of such material evidence accompanied by
appropriate application, the Trial Court shall
afford opportunity to the plaintiff and defendants
and if it is found that the deceased defendant
No.1 had indeed effected any improvements to
any of the scheduled properties equities be made
accordingly while allotting the share."
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that this being the state of affairs, before the
Trial Court on the basis of the orders passed in the Regular
Second Appeals, they sought for permission to produce
certain documents and based on the documents that were
produced, enquiry was conducted and order was passed,
which is impugned herein.
NC: 2026:KHC:7127
HC-KAR
5. It is a contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that the learned Trial Judge in FDP No.11/2018
ought to have permitted the petitioners to rely upon other
documents for the purpose of consideration of the mesne
profits, rather than restricting the petitioner to the
improvements made after the filing of the suit, which is
illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment rendered by
this Court in the Regular Second Appeals proceedings.
Therefore, it is his contention that several improvements
have been made by the petitioners during the lifetime of
G. M. Mahadevaiah, which he intends to produce at the
time of the deciding of the mesne profits.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 vehemently contends that pursuant to
the orders passed by this Court in Regular Second Appeals
proceedings, several documents were placed, evidence
were adduced, enquiry was conducted, documents were
marked, cross examined and the same are in the records.
Having appreciated all these documents, the learned Judge
NC: 2026:KHC:7127
HC-KAR
of the Trial Court in the FDP matters, came to the
conclusion that the improvements made by deceased
defendant No.1 with his hard earned money, is rejected.
However, the improvements made by respondent No.1
after filing of the aforesaid suit and compensation to that
effect shall be kept open to be decided at the time of
deciding mesne profits.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further
submits that several documents have already been placed
before the Trial Court. If at all the petitioners want to
place any further documents, they may place it before the
Trial Court at the time of deciding the mesne profits, which
is already ordered by the Trial Court. The only question is
whether the petitioners have any documents, which they
had not produced earlier, pursuant to the judgment
rendered in the second appeals, could be placed now
before the Trial Court for deciding the mesne profits.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 fairly
submits that a whole lot of documents in huge numbers
NC: 2026:KHC:7127
HC-KAR
were produced by the petitioners, based on which enquiry
was conducted. However, he would not have much
objection for production of any further documents prior to
1999, if in the custody of petitioners to be placed before
the Trial Court. He would certainly object to the same, the
genuinity and proof of it, when and if so produced.
9. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is disposed of.
ii. The impugned order passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Magadi in FDP
No.11/2018 dated 08.09.2025, to the extent
of rejecting the contention of petitioners with
regard to the improvements made by
deceased defendant No.1 by investing his
hard earn money, is hereby set aside.
Petitioners are permitted to produce any such
documents to show the improvements made,
if any by deceased defendant No.1 before the
Trial Court at the time of consideration of
mesne profits.
NC: 2026:KHC:7127
HC-KAR
iii. The FDP Court shall proceed further in the
matter in accordance with law.
iv. It is made clear that this order would not
preclude the FDP Court from proceeding
further in the matter and decide the mesne
profits separately.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
NJ
LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 1
CT:SI
