- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2345 WP No. 556 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 556 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. THIMMAKKA W/O. BANDERANGAPPA, D/O. LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BENCHE BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK-572 137 2. PUTTATHIMMAIAH S/O. LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDENT OF HOSAMALLENAHALLI, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK-572 137 3. HUCCHAPPA S/O. LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS TEACHER, AT GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL, OORUKERE, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT, RESIDING AT HOSAMALLENAHALLI, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK-572 137 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NARASAMMA D/O. LATE LINGAPPA, W/O. MAHALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2345 WP No. 556 of 2018 SIRA TALUK-572 137 2. PATHALINGAPPA S/O. LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK-572 137 3. RANGASHAMAIAH S/O. LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT HOSAMALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, KALLAMBELLA HOBLI, BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK-572 137 4. SHIVALINGAMMA W/O. SHIVALINGAMURTHY, D/O. LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT MANJUSHREE, CHANNABASAVESHWARA NILAYA, 7TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR, TUMKURU- 572 137 5. RAJAMMA D/O. LATE LINGAPPA, W/O. DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT D. NO.33, 5TH CROSS, N.P. BLOCK, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR WORK DIVISION, KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED, NO.9584 AND 9585, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, EAST, JCR CIRCLE, CHITRADURGA …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SHUBHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R6 V/O/D 29/7/2021, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT R2, R3 & R4- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/D 9/1/2025, PETITION AGAINST R5 STANDS DISMISSED) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2345 WP No. 556 of 2018 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 15.12.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRA ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.344/2016 ON HER FILE, VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY ALLOWING THIS W.P. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ‘DISMISSAL’, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A. in O.S.No.344/2016 dated 15.12.2017 by the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira, filed under Order 39 Rule 6 Read with Section 151 of CPC, defendant No.2 is before this Court. 2. It is the case of respondent No.1 herein that he had filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/8th share. In that, she had come up with an application praying to order to sell the usufructs of areca nut trees and coconut trees which are situated in suit item No.1 through auction and directs the defendants to deposit the sale proceeds. The defendants have come up with objections stating that there was an oral partition earlier and as per the partition, they have been enjoying the property. Now, if such an order is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2345 WP No. 556 of 2018 passed, it will cause lot of hardship to the defendants and they would be left with no income. 3. The Trial Court, by order impugned had observed that when the relationship is not in dispute and when the plaintiff is the member of the family, whether there is an oral partition or not, all these things will be decided on the merits of the matter. Unless and until the interim order is granted whereby the sale proceeds are deposited in the Trial Court, it would cause lot of prejudice to the plaintiff. Considering all these, the Trial Court had directed defendant Nos.1 to 7 to sell the usufructs of the suit item No.1 through auction and to deposit the share of the plaintiff which derives from the auction after deducting the expenditures, in the Court. Defendant Nos.1 to 7 are not directed to deposit the entire sale proceeds in the Court, but they have to submit the proper accounts before the Trial Court. The auction has to take place in the presence of the Court Commissioner and the Court Commissioner has to submit the report in respect of the auction to the Trial Court. The plaintiff is at liberty to choose her choice of advocate as Court Commissioner and accordingly, party allowed the I.A. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No.2 is before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2345 WP No. 556 of 2018 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/ defendants submits that there is an oral partition and the share of the parties is not determined. At this juncture, if such an order is passed, it is not in the interest of the defendants and he submits that the case of the defendants is not properly considered by the Trial Court. 5. Though the notices are served on respondent Nos.2 to 4, no vakalath is filed on their behalf. This Court by order dated 29.07.2021 and 09.01.2025, held notice to respondent No.1 as sufficient and as the petitioners have failed to take steps against respondent No.5, the writ petition was dismissed as far as respondent No.5 is concerned. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, who is a formal party, submits that the Trial Court had passed a reasoned order. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, perused the material on record. The plaintiff had filed the suit for partition and she is claiming 1/8th share. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. According to the defendants, the partition has already been take place which - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2345 WP No. 556 of 2018 is on the merits of the matter and the Trial Court will decide eventually during the course of trial. Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel for defendants unless and until the shares are determined, they cannot deposit the amount. Considering the fact that the plaintiff had sought for 1/8th share, the Trial Court had rightly considered this and directed to deposit only 1/8th share and the defendants are at liberty to enjoy the remaining share and they have to place the accounts before the Trial Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed is an equitable order and no interference is called for. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in this writ petition, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5