- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4169 WP No. 43856 of 2019 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. 43856 OF 2019 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI S.N.RAMAKRISHNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE B.S.NARAYANA GOWDA, R/AT NO.22, “JYOTHILAKSHMI NILAYA”, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, ‘A’ CROSS, BYATARAYANAPURA NEW EXTN. NEAR MYSORE ROAD, GEF POST, BENGALURU- 560 026 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.VENKATAMMA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O MR.K.NARAYANAPPA R/AT NO.22, “JYOTHILAKSHMI NILAYA”, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, ‘A’ CROSS, BYATARAYANAPURA NEW EXTN. NEAR MYSORE ROAD, GEF POST, BENGALURU- 560 026 …RESPONDENT (V/O/D 27/2/24, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELF SUFFICIENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2019 PASSED BY THE XIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU IN O.S.NO.5447/2016 AT ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ALLOW I.A.NO.3 DATED 23.02.2019 FILED BY THE PETITOENR IN O.S.NO.5447/2016 AT ANENXURE-C TO THE WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4169 WP No. 43856 of 2019 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.No.3 in O.S.No.5447/2016 dated 23.02.2019 by the XIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the plaintiff is before this Court. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the son-in- law and the defendant is the mother-in-law. The plaintiff had sought partition of the suit schedule property. By virtue of the judgment and decree, 50% of the A and B schedule properties were allotted to the plaintiff’s wife and 50% of the properties were allotted to the defendant, who is none other than the mother-in-law. It is the case of the defendant that the wife of the plaintiff has no right to execute a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. The present I.A. came to be filed directing the defendant to pay 50% monthly rent pertaining to the A and B schedule properties to the plaintiff or to deposit the same in the Court or in a nationalized bank. That came to be dismissed by the Trial Court by an order impugned. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4169 WP No. 43856 of 2019 3. While rejecting the I.A.No.3., the Trial Court had observed that on perusal of the relief sought in the plaint, no such relief is claimed to award the rent or mesne profit and no Court fee is paid to the effect of claiming rent. The plaintiff instead of adducing evidence from the date of framing of issues, filed the present application and a counterclaim is made that the gift deed dated 04.07.2013 to declare it as null and void and also to declare the Will dated 23.07.2015 as null and void. The Trial Court further observed that the title of the wife of the plaintiff to execute the gift deed is also in serious dispute. It is stated that as no relief is claimed by the plaintiff and also in the absence of the tenants as parties, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the Trial Court had rejected the I.A. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ plaintiff submits that as per the judgment and decree, 50% of the A and B schedule properties are given to the plaintiff’s wife and the mother-in-law is enjoying the properties. The Trial Court ought to have granted the relief as sought. It is submitted that the Trial Court had observed that the tenants has to be made party which is not necessary and as the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4169 WP No. 43856 of 2019 mother-in-law is receiving the rents and as she is the party, making the tenants as parties to this application is not necessary. 5. The notice to the respondent has returned as not claimed, this Court by order dated 27.02.2024, had held that notice to respondent is sufficient. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The first observation of the Court with regard to the court fees, if the plaintiff is entitled for any mense profits and any amount is awarded by the Court and if any Court fees has to be paid, the Court can always direct the plaintiff to pay the court fees. In facts and circumstances of the case, basing on a judgment and decree passed by a Family Court where 50% of A and B schedule properties are allotted to the daughter which are given by way of a gift deed to the husband. Though the defendant/mother-in-law denies the same, which has to be eventually decided by the Trial Court as the mother-in-law alone is enjoying the rents, the Trial Court ought to have passed an order directing the mother-in-law to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4169 WP No. 43856 of 2019 deposit the rents in the Court. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The impugned order in I.A.No.3 in O.S. No.5447/2016 dated 23.02.2019 by the XIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is set aside. ii. The defendant shall deposit the rents in respect to A and B schedule properties in the suit account. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iv. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11