- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45639 RFA No. 1847 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1847 OF 2021 (DEC/PAR-) BETWEEN: M/S. VEDABHOOMI HEIGHT A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI SEGU SUDHAKAR S/O LATE GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO. 402, NO. 3/7 BRODIPET, GUNTUR ANDRA PRADESH – 522 001. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SOWMYASHREE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R.V.SRINIVASA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MUNIYAMMA D/O LATE MOTAPPA W/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT MARAVENAHALLI VILLAGE MANDIKAL HOBLI CHIKKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 562 101. 2. SMT. SUBBAMMA D/O LATE MOTAPPA Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45639 RFA No. 1847 of 2021 W/O GURAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT RAMALINGAPURA VILLAGE BASHTTIHALLI HOBLI SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK CHIKKABALLPUR DISTRICT – 562 101. 3. SMT. NAGAVENAMMA D/O LATE MUNIYAPPA W/O SRIRAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO. 203, PRAKRUTHI BUILDING PATTERNAHALLI VILLA, AVALAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 056. 4. SRI JANARADHAN S/O MUNIYAPPA R/AT IRREGENAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA TOWN DEVANHALLI TALUK BENGALURLU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110. 5. SRI M.NAGARAJU S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT IRREGENAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYPURA TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.F.KUMBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.03.2021 PASSED IN OS No.424/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45639 RFA No. 1847 of 2021 DEVANAHALLI, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION, SEPARATE POSSESSION AND DECLARATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal preferred by defendant No.3 in O.S.No.424/2014, directing against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.03.2021 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, whereby the said suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs against the appellant - defendant No.3 and respondent Nos.3 to 5 – defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 2 granting 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule properties and the decree drawn by the trial Court in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs against the appellant - defendant No.3 and respondent Nos.3 to 5 – defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45639 RFA No. 1847 of 2021 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit seeking partition and separate possession claiming 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and declaring that the registered general power of attorney executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not appear before the trial Court. Since defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit, the legal representatives of defendant No.1 were brought on record as defendant Nos.1(a) and (b), but even they did not choose to file written statement. Defendant No.3 entered appearance and filed written statement contesting the suit, pursuant to which, the trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, themselves and defendants No.1 are the members of joint family? (2) Whether the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties? (3) Whether the defendant No.3 proves that the suit schedule properties have been fallen to the share of defendant No.1 and others as per partition deed dated 09.03.2005? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45639 RFA No. 1847 of 2021 (4) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed? (5) What order or decree? 4. The plaintiffs examined their special power of attorney as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to P41 were marked. However, the appellant - defendant No.3 did not cross-examine PW-1 nor adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence. 5. In this context, it is the specific assertion on the part of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant - defendant No.3 is that, before the trial Court the appellant was not in a position to cross-examine PW-1 or adduced any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence. 6. It was contented that the inability and omission on the part of the appellant-defendant No.3 to contest the suit after commencement of evidence of respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs was due to bonafide reasons, unavoidable circumstance and sufficient cause and it is therefore necessary to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45639 RFA No. 1847 of 2021 matter back to the trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, it is contented by the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that despite granting sufficient opportunity, the appellant-defendant No.3 did not exercise due diligence in contesting the suit and as such, the trial Court was fully justified in passing the impugned judgment and decree, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present appeal. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court warrants interference by this Court in the present appeal? 9. 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 evidence of PW-1 remained un-rebutted and that the appellant - defendant No.3 did not adduce any defence evidence and proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Under - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45639 RFA No. 1847 of 2021 these circumstances, having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the appellant that his inability and 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 – defendant No.3, I deem it just and appropriate to set 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. 10. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 24.03.2021 passed in O.S.No.424/2014 by the trial court is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. (iv) The appellant-defendant No.3 is directed to cross- examine PW-1 on a date to be fixed by the trial Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45639 RFA No. 1847 of 2021 (v) Parties are to appear before the trial Court on 08.12.2025 without awaiting further notice. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of both the parties to adduce further oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claim. (vii) All rival contentions between the parties kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. (viii) The trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months. (ix) The appellant – defendant No.3 shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to respondent Nos.1 and 2 - plaintiffs before the trial Court on the date of appearance i.e., on 08.12.2025. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT:SS