- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49763 RFA No. 708 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 708 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT. SONU BAI W/O LATE NAGENDRA RAO BARGE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KACHAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUDLIGERE HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK – 577 245 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAVINDRANATH M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S.SURESH KUMAR S/O SWAMY KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO 1/111, SOUTH STREET, THIRUVALLUR POST, POLAR TALUK, THIRUVANNAMALAI, TAMILNADU - 606 601 2. SRI.DANDYUDHA PANI S/O LATE SAMPATH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT 3RD CROSS, O.S.M.ROAD, OPP. CHOWDAMMA TEMPLE, OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI - 577 301 3. SMT.PREMA LATHA W/O M.P.ANNDORAI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT PILLAR KOYIL STREET, DEVANAMBATTU STREET NORTH STREET, TURANGAEPURAM, VANDRAM TALUK, THIRUVANNAMALAI, TAMILNADU -606 601 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MONISH C.P., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49763 RFA No. 708 of 2024 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.03.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.37/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal by the 4th defendant O.S.No.37/2019 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04.03.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi, whereby the said suit filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff against the appellant-4th defendant and remaining defendants for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s alleged share in the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. 2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for 1st respondent and perused the material on record. 3. Though the notice of this petition is served on respondents 2 and 3, they remained unrepresented and not contested the appeal. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49763 RFA No. 708 of 2024 4. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to by their respective rankings before the trial court. 5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of his alleged share in the suit schedule immovable property and other reliefs. The appellant-4th defendant remained ex-parte and did not contest the suit, while defendants 1 to 3 filed the written statement and contested the suit, pursuant to which, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- “1) Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of his grandmother Smt. Chandramma wife of Sampath? 2) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that suit schedule property is his self-acquired property purchased in the name of his wife Chandramma? 3) Whether the defendant No.1 further proves that court fee paid is not properly? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property? 5) Whether the plaintiff proves that sale of suit schedule property by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of 4th defendant is not binding upon him? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49763 RFA No. 708 of 2024 6) What order or decree? Note: Issue No.3 is treated as preliminary issue.” 6. The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P26. The defendant No.1 examined himself as DW-1 but did not produce any documentary evidence. As stated supra, appellant-4th defendant remained ex-parte and did not file her written statement nor contested the suit and did not cross-examine PW-1 nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence on her behalf. In this context, it is the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that her inability and omission to contest the suit was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause and it is therefore necessary to provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity to contest the suit on merits by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree and remitting the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the impugned judgment and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49763 RFA No. 708 of 2024 decree passed by the Trial Court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal? 8. A perusal of the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree will indicate that the Trial Court has taken into account the fact that the appellant – 4th defendant remained ex-parte and did not contest the suit nor cross-examine PW-1, whose evidence remained unchallenged, unimpeached and uncontroverted by the appellant coupled with the fact that the 4th defendant did not adduce any defence evidence and proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the appellant – 4th defendant is an alienee / purchaser of the suit schedule property and is not a family member of the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the appellant-4th defendant that her inability to contest the suit by filing the written statement and her omission to cross-examine PW-1 and adduce defence evidence was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause, by adopting a justice oriented approach and in order to provide one more opportunity to the appellant – 4th defendant, I deem it just and appropriate to set - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49763 RFA No. 708 of 2024 aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law by issuing certain directions including imposing cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the appellant – 4th defendant which would be payable to the plaintiff before the trial court. 9. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) The appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 04.03.2023 passed in O.S.No.37/2019 by the trial court is hereby set aside, subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/- by the appellant – 4th defendant to the plaintiff on her date of appearance before the trial court. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 05.01.2026 without awaiting further notice from the trial court. (V) Liberty is reserved in favour of the 4th defendant to file her written statement, objections, documents etc., before the trial - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49763 RFA No. 708 of 2024 court which shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law. (vii) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. (viii) All rival contentions between the parties kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (ix) The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit afresh as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from 05.01.2026. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MEG/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28