- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:658 RSA No. 2168 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 2168 OF 2023 (PAR-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUNITHA W/O LATE M. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 2. MASTER GOURAV S/O LATE M. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, APPL. NO.2 IS A MINOR AND HENCE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER APP NO.1 BOTH ARE R/AT D. NO.106, 6TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARA NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 079. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SREE VIDYA G K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VEDAVATHI M D/O LATE MOHAN SITARAM, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.71, BSK 1ST STAGE, BEHIND MADDURAMMA TEMPLE, BENGALURU - 560 050. 2. SMT. KALPANA D/O LATE MOHAN SITARAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.607, PIPELINE ROAD, Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:658 RSA No. 2168 of 2023 SRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050. 3. SMT. GAYATHRI D/O LATE MOHAN SITARAM, W/O S.S. NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT D NO.61, 6TH CROSS, CHOOHIR PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 045. 4. SRI. M. RANGANATH S/O LATE MOHAN SITARAM, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, WORKING AS F.D.C. DIST. INDUSTRIAL & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. SRI. M. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O LATE MOHAN SITARAM, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT D.NO. 1143/88, SARVAJANIKA HOTEL MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU - 570 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & 2) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.08.2023 PASSED IN RA.No.386/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDIITONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.09.2021 PASSED IN FDP No.106/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU ALLOWING THE PETITIONER FILED U/O 20 RULE 18 R/W SEC. 54 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:658 RSA No. 2168 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by appellants under Section 100 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2023 passed in R.A. No.386/2021 by VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the parties. The appellants were respondent Nos.3 and 3(a) and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 5 were the other respondents before the trial Court. 3. The case of the appellants is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a suit in O.S. No.237/2009 for partition and separate possession, which was decreed on 05.10.2013. Subsequently, a Final Decree Proceedings was also filed in FDP No.106/2017 and a Commissioner was appointed. On receipt of the Commissioner's report, the trial Court accepted the said report along with the sketch and disposed of the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs-respondent No.1 herein filed an appeal in R.A. No.62/2023 and the defendant- respondent Nos.3 and 3(a) filed an appeal in R.A. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:658 RSA No. 2168 of 2023 No.386/2021. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants in R.A. No.386/2021 and allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 in R.A. No.62/2023. Being aggrieved by the order passed in R.A. No.386/2021, the present appeal is filed by respondent Nos.3 and 3(a). 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the First Appellate Court has committed an error in accepting the report of the Commissioner and allotting a portion of the property which is not suitable for the plaintiffs. Even though the appellants herein objected, the First Appellate Court has not considered the same and allotted the shares, which is not correct. There is substantial question of law in this appeal challenging the order passed by the courts below. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has seriously objected on the maintainability of the appeal and contended that the judgment passed in R.A. No.62/2023 in favour of respondents herein has not been challenged and only the rejection of the appeal in R.A. No.386/2021 has been challenged in this appeal. There is no executable order in this - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:658 RSA No. 2168 of 2023 appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellants have filed a memo for allotting the third portion, and later, it was withdrawn. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that the trial Court accepted the sketch and the report made by the Commissioner and there is no allotment made by the trial Court to the respective parties. Therefore, the First Appellate Court has modified the order and the allotted shares to all the parties, which is mentioned in the decree of the First Appellate Court. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel that the appellants have all already received huge Rent in the said property for allotting the shares and there is no substantial question of law arises for admitting the appeal and hence, prayed for dismissing the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the records. 7. Perusal of the records, it reveals that, of course, the trial Court has committed an error in accepting the report of the Commissioner and the sketch in toto, wherein the Commissioner has not made any allotment to the parties to the lis. However, the First Appellate Court, after hearing the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:658 RSA No. 2168 of 2023 parties, has dismissed the appeal in R.A. No.386/2021 filed by respondent Nos.3 and 3(a)/ the appellants herein and allowed the appeal in R.A. No.62/2023 and allotted the shares to the parties as under: ORDER This regular appeal filed by the appellants is hereby dismissed and R.A.No.62 of 2023 is hereby allowed. Consequently, the order of the Trial Court is modified as under: “Plaintiff No.1 Vedavathi.M is hereby allotted portion No.1 [ABEFIHGA] total area measuring 524.87 square feet as shown in the Commissioner sketch. Plaintiff No.2 Kalpana is hereby allotted portion No.2 [BCDJIFEB] total area measuring 525.87 square feet as shown in the Commissioner sketch. Respondent No.1 Gayathri is hereby allotted portion No.3 [LMNOPQL] total area measuring 408.31 square feet as shown in the Commissioner sketch. Respondent No.2 M.Ranganath is hereby allotted portion No.4 [KLQRK] total area measuring 423.00 square feet as shown in the Commissioner sketch. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:658 RSA No. 2168 of 2023 Respondent No.3[a] Sunitha and 3[b] Master Gourav are jointly allotted portion No.5 [TUVWT] total area measuring 438.18 square feet as shown in the Commissioner sketch. Respondent No.4 M.Chandrashekhar is hereby allotted portion No.6 [STWXS] total area measuring 438.18 square feet as shown in the Commissioner sketch. As the portions 1 and 2 are having valuable Shop building and residential building, Vedavathi.M is allotted portion No.1, has to pay amount of Rs.1,42,500/- to Gayathri, M.Ranganath, legal representatives of M.Ramachandra and M.Chandrashekhar, who are allotted portion Nos. 3 to 6. Likewise, Kalpana who is allotted portion No.2 has to pay Rs.1,42,500/- to Gayathri, M.Ranganath, legal representatives of M.Ramachandra and M.Chandrashekhar, who are allotted portion Nos. 3 to 6. 8. Though the appellants have challenged the appeal filed by them in R.A. No.386/2021, but not challenged the appeal filed in R.A. No.62/2023. The First Appellate Court, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:658 RSA No. 2168 of 2023 after considering the report of the Commissioner, has rightly allotted the shares to each of the parties. It is mentioned by the First Appellate Court that as the portions 1 and 2 are having valuable shop building and residential building, Vedavathi M. allotted portion No.1, has to pay the amount of ₹1,42,500/- to Gayathri, M. Ranganath, the legal heirs of M. Ramachandra and M. Chandrashekhar, who are allotted portion NOs.3 to 6. Thereby, the appellants are entitled for the benefits of the decree passed by the First Appellate Court. 9. Considering the facts of the case, there is no substantial question of law arises for admitting the appeal as the appeal allowed by the First Appellate Court is not challenged by the appellants herein. Therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 CT:SK