[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jayalakshmamma vs Sri M L Muniraju on 8 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB
RFA No. 2132 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2132 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
W/O. GOVINDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O. GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
3. SMT. RENUKAMMA
W/O. VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
Digitally signed
by
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE
APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
SUSHMA R/AT NO.99/A, 21ST MAIN
LAKSHMI
Location: High MARENAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR POST
Court of
Karnataka BENGALURU-560 078
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI NAVEEN REDDY M. V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI M. L. MUNIRAJU
S/O. LATE MUNIMANGAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB
RFA No. 2132 of 2018
HC-KAR
1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI
W/O. LATE M. L. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2. SRI SUDHAKAR BABU
S/O. LATE M. L. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
3. SRI SHIVASAGAR
S/O. LATE M. L. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT NO.99/A, 1ST MAIN
MARENAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 078
4. SMT. SUSHMA
D/O. LATE M. L. MUNIRAJU
W/O. VIJAY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
5. SMT. GIRIVANI
D/O. LATE M. L. MUNIRAJU
W/O. SATHISH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESPONDENT NOS.4 AND 5 ARE
R/AT NO. CHOWDENAHALLI
ANEKAL TALUK-562 106
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
6. SRI M. VENKATESH
S/O. LATE MUNIMANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.99/A, 21ST MAIN
MARENAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560 078
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB
RFA No. 2132 of 2018
HC-KAR
7. SMT. V. SHANTHI
D/O. M. VENKATARAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT SURVEY NO.56
ROOPENA AGRAHARA
MADIVALA POST, HOSUR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 068
8. SRI MANJESH KUMAR
S/O. LATE MUNIMANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT NO.99/A, 21ST MAIN
MARENAHALLI, J. P. NAGAR POST
BENGALURU-560 078
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 - R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH
ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.01.2018
PASSED IN OS.NO.2727/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XLII
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND
DECLARATION AND ETC.,
THIS RFA IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB
RFA No. 2132 of 2018
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present Regular First Appeal has been filed under
Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure Act, 1908, impugning the judgment and decree
dated 12.01.2018 passed in O.S No.2727 of 2012, filed by Sri
Manjesh Kumar/respondent No.8 - brother of the appellants.
2. The respondent No.8 had filed the suit
O.S.No.2727/2012 for partition, declaration and permanent
injunction, in respect of the suit schedule properties. On the
basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Trial Court framed
the following issues for determination:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, there is
existence of the family and suit schedule properties
are joint family properties?
2. Whether the defendants prove that, defendant
No.9 paid Rs.31,00,000/- as good will?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as
sought for?
NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB
HC-KAR
4. What order or decree?
2(i) Learned Trial Court decided Issue No.1 partly in
favour of the plaintiff, whereas Issue No.2 has been decided
against the defendants. Issue No. 3 has been partly allowed in
favour of the plaintiff. However, no cost has been awarded.
2(ii) Learned Trial Court has held that the plaintiff would
be entitled to get 1/3rd share in 50% of Item Nos.1 and 4 of the
suit schedule properties as per the Joint Development
Agreement. However, in respect of the suit schedule properties
Item Nos.2, 3 and 5, the claim of the plaintiff has been
rejected. The Trial Court has also rejected the relief in respect
of the declaration and permanent injunction.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted
that the appellants / sisters of the plaintiff have executed
relinquishment deed / release deed - Ex.D4 in favour of the
plaintiff. The Ex.D-4 would suggest the appellants had received
Rs.1,00,000/- each, which would clearly show that the plaintiff
and his two brothers i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2 had acquired
absolute interest and title over Item Nos.1 to 4 of the suit
schedule properties and they succeeded as joint owners in
NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB
HC-KAR
respect of those properties. In fact, the plaintiff himself
accepted before the Trial Court that the defendant Nos.1 and 2
would be entitled for equal share in Item Nos.1 and 4 and thus
conceded the relinquishment deed. The Trial Court has decreed
the suit in respect of the suit schedule properties in Item Nos.1
and 4, granting 1/3rd share in 50% of Item Nos.1 and 4 of the
suit schedule properties.
3(i) Learned counsel for the appellants further
submitted that after the relinquishment deed was executed by
the appellants, a separate document Ex.D5 was executed
between the parties i.e., Memorandum of Understanding dated
13.10.2010, wherein the appellants were entitled for 15% of
the built up area of the property i.e., 600 square feet each.
4. This was not an issue before the Trial Court in the
partition suit. If the appellants have any right in respect of the
Memorandum of Understanding, they could have enforced their
right under the Memorandum of Understanding by taking
appropriate proceedings. However, in respect of the judgment
and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge, we do not find
that the same suffers from any illegality inasmuch as the suit
NC: 2026:KHC:1149-DB
HC-KAR
has been partly decreed on the basis of the relinquishment
deed executed by the appellants/defendants in favour of the
plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2. Thus, we do not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree.
5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending
applications do not survive for consideration and they are also
disposed of.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
BSS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
