- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11255 MFA No. 630 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.630 OF 2025 (CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. N.NARASIMHAMURTHY, SON OF N.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTADAGUDDADAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, PINCODE – 560073. 2. SRI.N.RAJASHEKARAIAH, SON OF N.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTADAGUDDADAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, PINCODE – 560073. 3. SRI.BYREGOWDA.N SON OF N.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTADAGUDDADAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, PINCODE – 560073. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PUNITH.C., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11255 MFA No. 630 of 2025 AND: 1. SRI. N. NARAYANASWAMY, SON OF LATE BYRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTADAGUDDADAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, PINCODE – 560073. 2. SMT. LOLAKSHAMMA.N, WIFE OF DEVARAJ, DAUGHTER OF N.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT THOTADAGUDDADAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, PINCODE – 560073. 3. SMT.SUMA.N @ MUNIRATHNAMMA.N WIFE OF SURESH KUMAR, DAUGHTER OF N.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT 28/1, MARUTHI LAYOUT, THOTADAGUDDADAHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, PINCODE- 560073. 4. SMT.A.ANURADHA DAY WIFE OF DILIP RANJAN DAY (D.R. DAY) AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.662-63, GURUKRUPA NIVAS, OFFICERS MODEL COLONY, S.M. ROAD, JALAHALLI WEST, BANGALORE, PINCODE -560057. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11255 MFA No. 630 of 2025 5. SRI M.G.NATARAJ SON OF LATE GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT MACHONAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK PINCODE – 562123. 6. SRI.RAGAVENDRASWAMY, SON OF N.H.VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NIDAVANDA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PINCODE – 562111. 7. SMT.D.M.TRIVENI, WIFE OF GOPAL RAJ URS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.369, BHADRACHARI LAYOUT, BEHIND SWAN SILK, SUBASHNAGARA, NELAMANGALA TOWN, PINCODE- 562123. 8. SMT.LEELAVATHI GOSWAMY, WIFE OF LATE PANDIT VIJAY KUMAR BHARATHI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.354, ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, ANCHEPALYA, SRIKANTAPURA, NAGASANDRA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, PINCODE - 562123 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. OMKAR MURTHY.G, ADVOCATE FOR C/R8) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11255 MFA No. 630 of 2025 THIS MFA HAS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.364/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA, REJECTING THE IA.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATESANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Though the appeal is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.364/2024 have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2024 passed on I.A.No.I in O.S.No.364/2024 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) thereby, the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, is rejected. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11255 MFA No. 630 of 2025 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The appellants/plaintiffs have filed suit for partition and separate possession by metes and bounds. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule property is agricultural land, but the counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that the suit schedule property is no more agricultural land in nature, is fully developed after forming sites and defendant No.8 is one among the purchaser of site of dimension of 60 ft. x 65 ft., and there was partition about 48 years ago and as per this partition, it is contended that the suit schedule properties were allotted to defendant No.1. 5. Further, the plaintiff had challenged the sale deed dated 07.11.1977 and the rectification deed dated 06.03.2008. The counsel for the respondents/defendants has produced some registered documents along with a memo stating that plaintiff No.1 has also consented to the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11255 MFA No. 630 of 2025 rectification deed dated 06.03.2008. Therefore, when there are already sale transactions much prior to filing of suit and according to the case of the defendants, the suit schedule property is not agricultural land and has lost characteristic of the agricultural land and also it is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that when there was partition effected about 48 years ago and thereafter, the coparceners have divided among themselves in the joint family and purchased the suit schedule land, is the question to be tried before the Trial Court in the suit in a full-fledged trial. 6. When this being the fact, the Trial Court is correct in observing that the plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case and rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, there is no need to make interference in the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11255 MFA No. 630 of 2025 8. Whatever the observations are made above shall not be construed on the merits involved in the case, but those are only in regard to ascertaining the propriety of the impugned order. 9. The Trial Court without being influenced by the above observations shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26