- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7221 WP No. 21003 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21003 OF 2024 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: S. SURESH S/O. LATE D. SASANKAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.394, 3RD CROSS, SADARAHALLI BYANNA EXTENSION, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560024 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HALLUR SHIVAYOGI BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAJITHA R W/O. LATE S. SATISH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 2. KUMARI. ATHIRA S D/O. LATE S. SATISH, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, R/BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. RAJITHA R, RESPONDENT NO.1, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO.6, CHINNAMARI LAYOUT, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560024 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PADMA M., ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/RESPONDENT NO.1 AND RESPONDENT NO.2) Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7221 WP No. 21003 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.04.2024 PASSED ON IA NO.1/2023 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC IN O.S.3380/2023 BY THE 9TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-5) BENGALURU, MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The defendant in O.S.No.3380/2023 on the file of IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) is before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 20.04.2024 by which, he was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- being the half share of the plaintiffs in the rent collected by him from suit item Nos.1 and 5. 2. (i) The suit in O.S.No.3380/2023 was filed for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs' half share in the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per month. The plaintiffs contended that the plaintiff No.1 is the daughter-in-law and plaintiff No.2 is the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7221 WP No. 21003 of 2024 grand daughter of late Sri. D.Sasankan and Smt. P.Girija. The defendant is the son of the said late Sri. D.Sasankan and Smt. P.Girija. The father-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 died on 20.03.2016 and her mother-in-law predeceased him on 27.04.2011. They claimed that the defendant and his brother i.e., the husband of plaintiff No.1 were staying in a joint family until the husband of plaintiff No.1 died on 07.05.2021. The plaintiffs claimed that during the life time of late Sri.D.Sasankan and Smt.P.Girija, they acquired several properties out of their own funds and after their demise, the properties were inherited by their two sons namely, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant. They contended that suit item Nos.1 and 2 were purchased by Smt. P.Girija and Sri.D.Sasankan respectively in terms of sale deeds dated 20.10.2003 and 07.04.2006. The suit item No.3 was jointly purchased by Smt.P.Girija and Sri. D.Sasankan. While suit item No.4 was purchased by Sri. D.Sasankan in terms of a sale deed dated 05.09.2011. The plaintiffs therefore, claimed that the suit item Nos.1 to 4 were the self acquisition of Smt. P.Girija and Sri. D.Sasankan. They further claimed that the defendant and husband of plaintiff No.1 were running an event management - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7221 WP No. 21003 of 2024 company and in the year 2012, they decided to purchase a property out of the profits earned from the business, accordingly they purchased suit item No.5 in terms of a sale deed dated 22.08.2012. They contended that suit item Nos.1 and 5 were developed by constructing residential apartments comprising of 3 floors and 4 floors respectively which were let out to tenants on a monthly rent of Rs.80,000/-. Therefore, the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule properties. (ii) The suit was contested by the defendant and for the purpose of this writ petition, the following averments of the written statement are necessary. The defendant claimed that suit item No.1 was purchased by his mother in terms of a sale deed dated 20.10.2003. In so far as suit item No.5 is concerned, he claimed that it was purchased by the defendant and his brother namely, the husband of plaintiff No.1. He claimed that he paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.19,35,000/- and he had constructed a building thereon by incurring more than Rs.70,00,000/-. He also claimed that his father had executed a Will dated 06.05.2015 bequeathing suit item Nos.2 and 4 in his favour. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7221 WP No. 21003 of 2024 (iii) The plaintiffs filed an application (I.A.No.1/2023) under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for a direction to the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- being their half share of the rent collected by the defendant from the suit item Nos.1 and 5. This application was contested by the defendant who only denied that he was collecting rent of Rs.80,000/-. He claimed that the assertions made by the plaintiffs was not supported by any documentary evidence. The Trial Court after perusing the statement made by the plaintiffs regarding the manner of acquisition of suit item Nos.1 and 5 and the fact that the defendant did not dispute it, held that the plaintiffs were entitled to an equal share in the rents collected by the defendant from the suit item Nos.1 and 5. Consequently it allowed the application in terms of the impugned order and directed the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- every month. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that except the assertions made by the plaintiffs that the defendant - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7221 WP No. 21003 of 2024 was collecting rent of Rs.80,000/-, there was no documents produced to establish the said fact. He therefore, contends that the Trial Court without calling upon the plaintiffs to produce proof, had blindly directed the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- every month. Besides this, he contends that the defendant had raised loan for constructing the building on suit item No.5 and that the rent earned from suit item Nos.1 and 5 were diverted for repayment of the installments. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the defendant. 6. A perusal of the objections filed by the defendant shows that the defendant did not disclose as to what was the rent that he was collecting from suit item Nos.1 and 5. The defendant did not deny the fact that suit item Nos.1 and 5 were developed by putting up residential apartments which were rented out. The defendant also did not plead in the objections to the application that he had raised a loan for putting up construction on suit item Nos.1 and 5 and that the rent earned from the said properties were diverted for the payment of the loan. Therefore, it is more than evident that the defendant had - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7221 WP No. 21003 of 2024 acknowledged that he was collecting rent of Rs.80,000/- per month from suit item Nos.1 and 5. Since the defendant claimed that his father had executed a Will in respect of suit item Nos.2 and 4 and not in respect of suit item Nos.1 and 5, the plaintiffs were entitled to half share in the rent earned from the suit item Nos.1 and 5. 7. In that view of the matter, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in directing the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- every month being the half share of the plaintiffs in the rent collected by the defendant from suit item Nos.1 and 5. 8. Hence, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 9. Any observations made in this order shall not come in the way of Trial Court disposing the suit on merits. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37