- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16533 WP No. 25609 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 25609 OF 2010 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SATYA KUMARI B.M. D/O LATE B.E.MARGASAGAYAM AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 2. VIJAYAKUMARI ALIAS VIJAYALAKSHMI B.M. D/O LATE B.E.MARGASAGAYAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. SHIVAKUMAR B.M. S/O LATE B.E.MARGASAGAYAM AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. BHARATHI ALIAS UMADEVI B.M. D/O LATE B.E.MARGASAGA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.42 (OLD) NEW NO.56, HUTCHINES ROAD 2ND CROSS, ST. THOMAS TOWN BANGALORE-560 084. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARUN K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. D.RAMAKRISHNAMURTHY S/O LATE V.G.DORAISWAMY R/AT NO.51/9, OSBORNE ROAD CROSS Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16533 WP No. 25609 of 2010 KODANDARAM LAYOUT BANGALORE 560 042. 2. SHANTHA W/O LATE B.E. ARUNACHALAM AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 3. MALA D/O LATE B.E. ARUNACHALAM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4. KALA D/O LATE B.E. ARUNACHALAM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 5. SHYLA D/O LATE B.E. ARUNACHALAM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.16 C-4TH STREET, KAMARAJ ROAD CROSS SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 042. 6. SMT. P.KASTURI W/O LATE B.E. PARAMASHIVAN AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 7. GOWRI D/O LATE B.E. PARAMASHIVAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.312/A 10TH MAIN, I STAGE BRUNDAVAN NAGAR MYSORE-570 020. 8. SMT. MEERA BAI W/O M.N.GAJA MURTHY IDK-46/B, NEW TOWN BHADRAVATHI SHIMOGA DISTRICT. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16533 WP No. 25609 of 2010 SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRs. 8(a) 8(b) SRI. M.G. SRINATH S/O LATE M.N.GAJA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS SRI. M.G.SRIKANT S/O LATE M.N.GAJA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.395 N.M.C. RIGHT SIDE 1ST CROSS, HOSAMANE NEAR BABY ICE FACTORY BHADRAVATHI-577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.RAMAKRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. H.C.SUNDARESH, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R6 & R7; R2, R4, R5, R8(A) AND R8(B) ARE SERVED) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMUPGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIAL COURT, THEREBY DISMISSING THE APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN DATED 22.06.2010 IN F.D.P.NO.55/1992 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16533 WP No. 25609 of 2010 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 22.06.2010 passed in F.D.P.No.55/1992 (vide Annexure-H to the writ petition) on the file of XI Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, respondent Nos.2 to 5 therein have preferred this writ petition. 2. The dispute pertains to division of a site measuring 40 ft. X 64 ft. in the city of Bengaluru. The preliminary decree has been passed dividing the proceeds of the property into 25 shares and 25 persons are found eligible to own the property. The said preliminary decree has attained finality. In the Final Decree Proceedings, the trial Court ordered appointment of a Court Commissioner for selling the property and distributing the proceeds amongst the persons eligible for the same in terms of the preliminary decree. In the said proceedings, the petitioners herein made an application with a prayer to seek division of the property by metes and bounds rather than sale of the property and division of the proceeds - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16533 WP No. 25609 of 2010 amongst the eligible persons. The trial Court rejected the same on the ground that this aspect has already been considered by the trial Court by an order dated 23.01.2003 and it is not possible to divide the site having 40 ft. road access into 25 parts and distribute it to eligible persons. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The question that arises for consideration is under the given facts and circumstances of the case, is it possible to divide the property into 25 shares by metes and bounds and distribute the same amongst the persons eligible for it. Admittedly, property measuring 40 ft. (having road access) X 64 ft., if it is divided into 25 parts, each person will get 1.6 ft. width of the property having road access and it serves no purpose. Under the said circumstances, the trial Court has rightly concluded that it is not feasible for dividing the property by metes and bounds and has ordered for sale of the same and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16533 WP No. 25609 of 2010 distribute the proceeds amongst the persons as per the preliminary decree. 4. I do not see any error in the well reasoned order of the trial Court. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1