- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1043 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. N. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHER, R/AT 1ST FLOOR OF MRF TYRE SHOP BUILDING BEHIND KIRAN TALKIES, SALURU ROAD, SHIKARIPURA TOWN- 577 427. 2. SRI. S. N. JAYAPPA, STO LATE NAGAPPA. AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. 3. SRI. S.N PAKEERAPPA, S/O LATE NAGAPPA. AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. 4. SRI. S.N SHANMUKHAPPA SO LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 5. SRI. S.N THIRTHAPPA, S/O LATE NAGAPPA, A GED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O KANOORU KADEKERI, NEAR S.B.M. BANK, SHIKARIPURA TOWN 577 427. 6. SRI. S.N BHUJANGAPPA, S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. 7. SRI. S.N MRUTHYUNJAYA, S/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK -577 427. 8. SMT. HIRIYAMMA, W/O CHENNAPPA H, D/O LATE. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. SHANTHI NAGARA, SHIKARIPURA TOWN-577 427. 9. SMT. RENUKAMMA, W/O LOHITH KUMAR, D/O LATE. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. 10. SMT. HULUGAMMA, W/O LATE NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427 11. SRI. S.B. ASHOKA, S/O S.N. BASAVARAJAPPA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O 1ST FLOOR OF MRF TYRE SHOP BUILDING, BEHIND KIRAN TALKIES, SALURU ROAD, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. 12. SRI. S.T. SUMANGALA, W/O THIRTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O KANOORU KADEKERI, NEAR S.B.M. BANK, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. 13. SRI. S.J. ANANDA, S/O JAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. 14. SRI. BHARGAVA S.B., S/O BHUNJANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. 15. SRI. S.S. VIKAS, S/O SHANMUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427 16. SMT. SUSHEELA PUTTAPPA, KADARAMANDALAGI, W/O S.N. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, TEACHER, R/O 1ST FLOOR OF MRF TYRE SHOP BUILDING, BEHIND KIRAN TALKIES, SALURU ROAD, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. RADHA R, ADVOCATE) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 AND: 1. RAMACHANDRAPPA S/O LATE BYLAPPA, DEAD BY HIS LRS., SRI. SRIPATHI, S/O LATE. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. 2. SMT. GOWRAMMA, W/O BABU M, D/O LATE. RAMACHNDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. 3. SMT. SUDHAMANI S. VIBUTHI, W/O SOMAPPA C, S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NEHRU MARKET, K.B. ROAD, RANEBENNUR TOWN, HAVERI DISTRICT. 4. SRI. HALESHA, S/O LATE. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427. 5. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O LATE RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577427. SINCE, UNDEVELOPED AND UNSOUND MIND LADY AND MENTALLY INFIRM - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER N.F/ GUARDIAN SRIPATHI S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O KAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577 427. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO C/R4, R5 IS UNDEVELOPED AND UNSOUND MIND LADY REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2025 PASSED IN FDP NO.7/2021 ( IN O.S.NO.137/2007) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 20 RULE 18 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.09.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, RAJESH RAI K, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants-respondents challenging the order dated 23.01.2025 passed in F.D.P.No.07/2021 (in O.S No.137/2007) before the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Shikaripura ("the Trial Court", for short) whereby, the Trial Court allowed the said proceedings with costs. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the Trial Court. 3. The abridged facts of the case are as under: The father of the petitioners one Ramachandrappa has filed the suit in O.S.137/2007 for partition and separate possession of the petition schedule properties. The said suit came to be dismissed by an order dated 08.04.2011. Against said judgment and decree, the father of the petitioners preferred an appeal before this Court in RFA.No.1355/2011. The said appeal filed was allowed in part vide judgment dated 05.03.2021 and a preliminary decree has been drawn. As per the preliminary decree in RFA No.1355/2011, the father of the petitioners was held entitled for half share in item Nos.1 to 11 and 16 to 23 in the suit ‘A’ schedule property and item Nos.1 to 4 in the suit ‘B’ schedule property in O.S.137/2007. However, his claim was rejected in respect of item Nos.12 to 15 in suit ‘A’ schedule property and item Nos.5 to 9 in suit ‘B’ schedule property as well as suit 'C' schedule properties. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 4. In order to draw the final decree as per the preliminary decree in RFA.No.1355/2011, the petitioners, being the legal representatives of Ramachandrappa, filed FDP.No.7/2021, in which, as prayed by the petitioners, since the petition schedule properties were agricultural and residential properties, two Court Commissioners were appointed to divide the petition schedule properties as per the preliminary decree. 5. The respondents/appellants herein, though appeared through their counsel, had not filed any objection in the final decree proceedings. 6. The Commissioners have filed their reports as per the preliminary decree in RFA. No.1355/2011. The said reports were accepted by the petitioners. However, the respondents have not filed any objections to the said reports. 7. The Trial Court, after hearing both side on merits, framed the following point for consideration in respect of drawing up of final decree: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 "Whether the final decree is required to be drawn as per the Preliminary Decree in RFA No. 1355/2011 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka?" 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on assessment of oral submissions and documents placed by both the parties, the Trial Court answered the aforesaid point in the affirmative and allowed the aforesaid FDP.No.07/2021 filed by the petitioners with costs. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred the instant appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel Smt.R.Radha., for the respondents/appellants and the learned counsel Sri. R.Gopal, for petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(d)/respondent Nos.1 to 4. 10. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/respondents is that the Trial Court has failed to implement the preliminary decree passed in RFA No.1355/2011 in accordance with law and procedure. It is also contended that the Commissioners report relied upon by the Trial Court were not in consonance with the directions in the aforesaid preliminary decree and were accepted without proper scrutiny - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 or objections. The allocation/division of the petition schedule properties is contrary to the shares declared in the aforesaid preliminary decree. 11. It is further contended that, item No.18 of petition 'A' schedule property i.e., Sy.No.8/12 and Sy.No.8/5 both measuring 27 guntas were not properly divided to make use of the same. On the other hand, these two survey numbers were divided in piece meal in such way that the shares allotted to the appellants have no access road. 12. He further contended that, there was excess land in item No.2 of petition 'A' schedule property and the same was not equally divided between the petitioners and respondents. 13. Further, petition schedule 'B' property i.e., item Nos.1 and 2 worth more than Rs.1.5 Crores, whereas item Nos.3 and 4 worth only Rs.60 lakhs and that item Nos.1 & 2 measured more than item Nos.3 and 4. As such, there is no equal division of properties. 14. It is also contended that the Commissioner appointed to assess the income from the arecanut crops in the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 lands in possession of respondents has not properly assessed the same and as such, his report cannot be accepted. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal by setting the aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in FDP No.7/2021. 15. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/petitioner Nos.1(a) to 1(d) contended that the Trial Court, after meticulously examining the oral and documentary evidence placed before it as also the Commissioners reports and the valuation of the petition schedule properties, has rightly passed the impugned order, which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 16. He further contended that, there was only 15 guntas of land remaining in item No.2 of petition 'A' schedule property and the same was equally divided between the petitioners and respondents i.e. 7½ guntas each and there is no excess land in the said item and if there is any excess, the respondents herein are ready to leave the same to the appellants. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 17. He further contended that the claim of the appellants in respect of alienation of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.4 and the commercial property, the equity extended as per the direction of this Court in the judgment passed in RFA No.1355/2011 by the Trial Court in the FDP proceedings by reserving liberty to the appellants that they are entitled for accounts in the income. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the sole point that arises for our consideration is: "Whether the Trial Court is justified in allowing F.D.P.No 07/2021, thereby drawing the final decree as per the preliminary decree in R.F.A. No.1355/2011 passed by this Court?" 19. It could be gathered from the records that, after filing of the final decree proceedings, the Trial Court appointed two Commissioners for division of petition schedule properties as per preliminary decree and another Commissioner was appointed to assess the income from arecanut. They submitted their reports. The reports of the Commissioners with regard to division of petition schedule properties were not objected by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 the appellants. However, they objected for the report in respect of assessment of income of arecanut. 20. Before filing this appeal, the appellants preferred a Miscellaneous Petition before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, seeking transfer of FDP proceedings. In the said petition, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the appellants were, one way or other, trying to prolong the matter in order to defeat the decree obtained by the respondents from this Court and accordingly dismissed the said petition. 21. As regards the contention of the appellants that item No.18 of petition 'A' schedule property i.e., Sy.No.8/12 and Sy.No.8/5 both measuring 27 guntas were not properly divided as the same affected their easementary rights is concerned, it is seen from the records that the said division was made as per the Commissioners report which was not objected to by the appellants. As such, having accepted the reports of the Commissioner, the appellants, after division of properties, cannot now claim that the division of properties is not properly done. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 22. As regards the contention raised by the appellants that there is excess land in item No.2 of petition 'A' schedule properties is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents fairly submits that if there is any excess land in the said item, then the respondents are ready to leave the excess portion to the appellants. 23. As regards the contention raised by the appellants that in petition 'B' schedule properties, item Nos.1 and 2 worth more than and also measure more than item Nos.3 and 4 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the same is totally far from truth and if it were to be so, then the respondents are ready to exchange item Nos.1 and 2 with item Nos.3 and 4. However, the learned counsel for the appellants is not ready to accede to the same. 24. As regards the claim of the appellants that though they were entitled to claim equity in respect of the income derived from selling of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.4 and a commercial property, as per the judgment in the aforesaid RFA, it seen from the judgment in FDP that the Trial Court has observed the share of the petitioner/respondents herein in the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38523-DB RFA No. 1043 of 2025 said accounts i.e., the income derived from selling the aforesaid properties, could be considered as equity to comply with the orders of this Court in RFA, since the appellants have not objected to the same. 25. As regards the income derived from arecanut is concerned, it could be gathered from the impugned order that the arecanut was auctioned and the amount fetched from that was equally divided between the parties. 26. In such circumstances, we find no good grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court in FDP No.7/2021. Accordingly, we answer the point raised above in the 'affirmative'. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. All pending I.As. stand disposed of. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1