- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3995 WP No. 6123 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 6123 OF 2017 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI P GANGANNA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS 1A. SMT SHIVAMMA W/O LATE P GAGANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 388, 15TH CROSS, SHANTHI NAGARA NEAR MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE DODDABALLAPURA. 1B. SRI G.SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE P. GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 388, 15TH CROSS, SHANTHI NAGARA, NEAR MUTHYALAMMA TEMPLE DODDABALLAPURA -561 203. 2. SMT.PUTTAMMA W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO 3, PAPEGOWDA STREET AKKITHIMMANAHALLI, SHANTHINAGARA BANGALORE – 560 027. 3. SMT.GANGAMMA W/O LATE HULLURAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT RAMESHWARA VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561 203. 4. SRI.NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE HULLURAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3995 WP No. 6123 of 2017 R/AT RAMESHWARA VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561 203. 5. SRI.APPAIAH RAJU S/O LATE HULLURAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT RAMESHWARA VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561 203. 6. SMT.KANTHAMMA W/O LATE RAMA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 7 & 8, 6TH MAIN ROAD, DODDABYRAPPA STREET PALACE GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 003. 7. SMT.UMADEVI W/O SRI RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO 259, 6TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, MARUTHI NAGAR, YELAHANKA BANGALORE – 560 064. 8. SRI. RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT GANIGARA PETE DODDABALLAPURA-561 203. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.AMMAYAMMA W/O LATE PAPANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT LINGAPURA VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-561 203. 2. SRI.RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3995 WP No. 6123 of 2017 R/AT 4TH CROSS, V.K.GOKUL ROAD, ANJANADRI LAYOUT, SANJEEVINI NAGARA DIVISION NO 34, NEAR MATRU SHREE KALYANA MANTAPPA YESWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE – 560 090. 3. SRI. CHANNAPPA S/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.117/A RAJAGOPAL NAGAR MAIN ROAD, PEENYA 2ND STAGE, 24TH DIVISION YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BANGALORE -560 058. 4. SRI. PUTTARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT RAMPURA VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDBALLAPURA -561 203. 5. SRI. GURURAJU S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/AT RAMPURA VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDBALLAPURA -561 203. 6. SRI RAJANNA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 6A. SMT.BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6B. SRI.MANOJ S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 6C. SRI.MANJUNATH S/O LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESPONDENTS NOS.6A TO 6C ARE R/AT 16/A, 3RD B CROSS RAMAIAH LAYOUT, 24TH DIVISION - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3995 WP No. 6123 of 2017 PEENYA 2ND STAGE YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU-560 058. 7. SRI RAMAMURTHY S/O LATE MUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT 16/A, 3RD B CROSS RAMAIAH LAYOUT, 24TH DIVISION PEENYA 2ND STAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE -560 058. 8. SRI SURENDRA S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO 38, 1ST C MAIN, 6TH CROSS, BANK COLONY SOCIETY BTM 2ND STAGE BANGALORE – 560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 & R7 R8- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O/D 28/12/21, PETITION DISMISSED AGAINST R6 (A-C) V/O/D 09/02/24, WP AGAINST R6 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED (IA.NO.1/19 TO IA.NO.3/19 ARE DISMISSED) PROPOSED R6 (A-C) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 31.08.2016 IN ANNEXURE-V PASSED BY SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN O.S.NO.218/2008 REFERRING ITEM NO.4 OF THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO LAND TRIBUNAL, DODDABALLAPURA FOR ITS DECISIION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3995 WP No. 6123 of 2017 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in O.S.No.218/2008 dated 31.08.2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District, whereby the Civil Court had referred the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal to decide the two questions involved in the case, i.e., whether the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the partition suit and whether the jurisdiction of the the Court to decide two conflicting issues of facts namely - (a) whether the occupancy rights in item No.4 of the suit property is granted in favour of the joint family in which Sri.Muthaiah is a member? Or (b) whether the occupancy rights in respect of item No.4 of the suit properties is granted in favour of Sri.Muthaiah in his individual capacity? 2. The trial Court considering the judgement in the case of Gopal Krishna Vs. K.Basheer1, held that the issues have to be referred to the Land Reforms Tribunal for its decision and only after the decision of the Land Reforms Tribunal regarding the said rival questions, the Court can go into the question of partition. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 1 2016 (3) KCCR 2398 G - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3995 WP No. 6123 of 2017 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the entire matter was heard and when the matter was posted for judgement, at that point of time, the Court had suo-moto referred the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal. He submits that the judgment that is considered by the Court do not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is submitted that it is never the case of the plaintiffs that the grant is in favour of joint family, but it is their case that though the grant is in favour of Sri.Muthaiah, but he being the member of the joint family, it enures to the benefit of the joint family members. It is submitted that the suit is of the year 2008 and at the fag end, the trial Court had passed this order. It is submitted that whether they are entitled for partition or not, whether all other materials even the records of the Tribunal and the grand that is in favour of Sri.Muthaiah, are all part of the record and the Court can independently decide the same and for that reason, there is no necessity to refer the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal and the Land Reforms Tribunal cannot grant a decree for partition. 4. On 28.01.2025, this Court had heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in-part and there was no - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3995 WP No. 6123 of 2017 representation on behalf of the respondents. This Court had directed the matter to be listed under the caption part-heard. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the entire material on record. This is a suit for partition. There are four items and in respect of 4th item of the suit schedule property, the occupancy rights were granted in favour of Sri.Muthaiah, who is one of the joint family member and the grandfather of defendant No.1. It appears from the record that the matter was heard and reserved and at that point of time, the Court has reopened the matter and referred the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal to find out whether the grant is in favour of Sri.Muthaiah or in favour of the joint family. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the property is granted in favour of Sri.Muthaiah and even if they say that grant is not in favour of Sri.Muthaiah and that the form is filed in the name of the joint family, then the burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits before this Court that it is never their case that form No.7 is filed in the name of the joint family and it is not - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3995 WP No. 6123 of 2017 disputed that the grant is in favour of Sri.Muthaiah. But he being a member of the joint family, it enures to the benefit of the family. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not necessary to refer the matter to the Land Reforms Tribunal and the burden always lies on the plaintiff to prove that it belongs to the joint family property. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. The order passed in O.S.No.218/2008 dated 31.08.2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District, is set aside. ii. The trial Court shall decide the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iv. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1