- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1901 OF 2019 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA & VENKATAMMA, 2. SRI. G. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O. LATE GANGAPPA & NAGAMMA, 3. SRI. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA & BODAMMA, 4. SRI. RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. MUNIYAPPA & LATE PAPAMMA, 5. SRI. RAGHU AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNISWAMY & AKKAMMA, R/AT SONENAHALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN – 563 133 Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 6. SRI. CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O. LATE ERAPPA & KAMALAMMA, APPELLANTS AR S.NO. 1 TO 3, 5&6 ARE RESIDING AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, PIN - 562 107. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.M. PRASHANTHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. N. SAMPATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA & LATE RAMAKKA, 2. SRI. SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA & LATE RAMAKKA, RESPONDENT AT SL.NO: 1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 18, GOVINDAPURA, ARABIK COLLEGE POST, YELANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, PIN – 560 064. 3. SMT. CHIKKAPUTTAMMA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, W/O. LATE Y. RAMAIAH @ RAMA REDDY, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 4. SMT. KANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, D/O. LATE Y. RAMAIAH @ RAMA REDDY, 5. SRI. R. SOMASHEKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE Y. RAMAIAH @ RAMA REDDY, 6. SMT. J. SARALA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O. R. SOMASHEKAR REDDY, 7. KUM. PRUTHVIKA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, D/O. R. SOMASHEKAR REDDY, MINOR, REP BY HER FATHER R. SOMASHEKAR REDDY, RESPONDENTS SL.NO.3 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT BANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, PIN - 560 081. 8. SRI. RAMACHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, S/O. LATE CHANNA REDDY, R/AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, PIN - 562 107. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 9. SRI. Y. M. LAKSHMANNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, 10. SMT. SAROJAMMA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, W/O. LATE Y. M. LAKSHMANNA REDDY, 11. SRI. SATISH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O. Y. M. LAKSHMANNA REDDY, 12. KUM. SHRESTHA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, D/O. SATISH, 13. SRI. L. KESHAVA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. Y. M. LAKSHMANA REDDY, 14. KUM. VINUTHA AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, D/O. L. KESHAVA, MINOR, REP BY HER FATHER, L. KESHAVA, RESPONDENTS SL. NO. 9 TO 14 R/AT YADAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, PIN - 562 107. 15. M/S. SREE SAI BUILDERS REP BY ITS PARTNER, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 I) DEGA SRINIVASALU REDDY, II) VASIPALLI NAGI REDDY, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.03, 29TH MAIN ROAD, ABBAIAH REDDY LAYOUT, J. P. NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078. 16. SRI. J. BHARATH JAGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O. LATE M. JAGANATHAN, R/AT NO.H-35, AVALAPALLI, HUDCO, HOSUR, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU - 635 109. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.P.LELLADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R16; V/O DATED 23.09.2022, R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED BY PP; R3, R4, R5, R6,R8 ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 31.08.2021, NOTICE TO R15 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R7 & R14 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN; V/O DATED 29.01.2024, NOTICE TO R9 TO R13 IS D/W ) THIS RFA FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.410/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.410/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru1, thereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE: 3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession for claiming 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties by stating that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiffs. It is stated in the plaint that grandfather of the plaintiffs had no exclusive right over the suit schedule properties, but sold the portion of the suit schedule properties on 1 hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 28.01.1981. Further, the daughters of grandfather of the plaintiffs are not parties to the sale transaction; therefore, by claiming that the plaintiffs are grandchildren of Thimma @ Thiammaiah have filed the suit for partition and separate possession. 4. The genealogy is stated in the plaint is as follows: 5. Despite service of notice, the defendants remained absent. Late Muniga @ Muniyappa Wife Late Muniyamma Late Thimma@ Thimmaiah Wife late Hanumaka 1. Venkamma (73) W/o Late Muniyappa 2. Late Nagamma W/o Late Ganagappa 3. Bodamma (68) W/o Late Narayanappa 4. Late Papamma W/o Muniyappa (75) 5. Akkamma (63) W/o Late Muniswamy 6. Kamalamma (58) W/o Late Erappa Children Children Children Children Children Children 1.Susheelamma (52) 2. Venkatesh (49) 3. Chandramma (45) 4. Manjunath (39) 1. Muniraju (58) 2. Papmma (55) 3.Rajappa(48) 4. Narayanamma (45) 1. Manjunath (25) 2. Raghu (33) 1. Chowdappa (25) 1. Venkatesh (45) 1. Narayanamma (47) 2. Rajappa (44) 3. Jayamma(41) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 6. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs have made out grounds to decree the suit? 2. What order or decree? 7. In order to prove the case, plaintiff No.5 is examined as PW-1 and got marked documentary evidence as Exs.P-1 to P-29. Since the defendants had not appeared and had not filed written statement, the evidence on behalf of the defendants was not adduced. 8. The Trial Court has dismissed the suit in a cryptic order by observing that Ex.P-13 is the certified copy of the gift deed dated 25.04.1968, whereby a portion of the suit schedule properties was gifted by one Ramaiah in favour of Ramakka to the extent of 28 guntas. Ex.P-15 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.01.1981. It was observed that the suit is barred by limitation as gift deed is of the year 1968 and the sale - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 deed is of the year 1981; therefore, the suit was dismissed as barred by limitation. 9. Another reason assigned by the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs came after the 4th generation hence, they have no right over the suit schedule properties. On the basis of these reasons, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit. 10. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the appellants/plaintiffs have preferred the appeal by raising various grounds in the memorandum of appeal and argued in consonance with the grounds urged that the entire extent of suit schedule properties is 01 acre 19 guntas, but as per Ex.P-15, the entire land was not transacted and there is still remaining land of *15 guntas and this was not considered by the Trial Court. 11. Further submitted that the Trial Court has not provided sufficient opportunities to the plaintiffs for *Corrected vide court order dated 24.11.2025 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 adducing evidence. Hence, prays to remand the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for defendant No.16 submitted that the Trial Court has given sufficient opportunities to the plaintiffs to prove their case, but they have failed to prove the same. Further, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation and it was correctly observed by the Trial Court. Hence, there is no need to make interference in the order passed by the Trial Court. Further submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is vexatious one; hence, there is no question of remanding the case to the Trial Court. Therefore, prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Upon hearing the arguments by both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and upon perusing the materials placed on record, the following point would arise for my consideration: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 "Whether, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference and thus, is liable to remand the suit to the Trial Court for fresh consideration?" 14. The Trial Court, in its cryptic order has dismissed the suit. The Trial Court has observed that the plaintiffs came after the 4th generation; hence, they have no right over the suit schedule properties. Upon perusing the family tree, the plaintiffs came after the 4th generation from Muniga @ Muniyappa; hence, the plaintiffs are to be treated as coparceners. This observation made by the Trial Court is not correct. Further, the Trial Court has straightway observed that one Ramaiah has gifted the suit schedule properties in favour of Ramakka. There is no evidence by the defendants as they were absent in the suit as to how Ramaiah is related to Thimma @ Thimmaiah, but the straightway observation made by the Trial Court is that Ramaiah had gifted the suit schedule properties in favour of Ramakka to the extent of 28 guntas of land, but the total extent of the suit schedule properties is 01 acre - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 19 guntas. Also, both the learned counsel appearing for the parties have failed to demonstrate what the total extent of the land sold out is as per the sale deed dated 28.01.1981 as per Ex.P-15. 15. Whether, Ramaiah is related to Thimma @ Thimmaiah or not, there is no evidence and how Ramaiah had executed the gift deed in favour of Ramakka in respect of suit schedule properties is also not proved by the plaintiffs in the evidence, which ought to have been produced by the defendants, but the defendants remained absent and were placed ex-parte before the Trial Court. Now, for the first time in appeal, defendant No.16 is contending that Ramaiah had executed the gift deed in favour of Ramakka. 16. There is no evidence that how the defendants are related to the Muniga @ Muniyappa and to his son Thimma @ Thimmaiah, but defendant Nos.1 to 14 are claiming to be children and heirship through Ramaiah, but - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 there is no evidence. Hence, there is a need to make proper adjudication of the suit. Though the gift deeds and sale deeds have been executed, whether they cover the entire extent of 01 acre 19 guntas or less than that, there is no evidence. Moreover, though some documentary evidence are produced, they are certified copies. The Trial Court has not discussed regarding these evidence in the context of secondary evidence produced by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court has not properly adjudicated the suit and due to the defendants’ absence has passed such a cryptic order dismissing the suit. Hence, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits involved in the case feels that it is a fit case to remand to the Trial Court for fresh consideration by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, I answer point in the Affirmative. 17. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The impugned judgment and decree dated 26.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.410/2015 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is hereby set aside. iii. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. iv. The Trial Court shall expedite the trial and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. v. All contentions are left open. vi. The defendants are permitted to file written statements. vii. The parties are given liberty to adduce any further evidence if they so desire. viii. If there are any subsequent purchasers, they are given liberty to implead themselves in the suit. ix. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41618 RFA No. 1901 of 2019 of two years from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. x. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court records. xi. No order as to costs. SD/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20