- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1213 OF 2024 (DEC/PAR) BETWEEN: RAJESH N. JAIN S/O NENMAL H. JAIN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.7, 11TH 'A' MAIN, 36TH CROSS, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 041. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. LAKSHMISH G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DORESWAMY S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK. 2. SHIVARAMU S/O LATE SHIVANNA, MAJOR R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK. 3. REKHA W/O VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT B-TYPE-II, KHB COLONY, HOOTAGALLI, MYSURU. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024 4. SUVARNAMMA W/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK. 5. MEENA W/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK. TEKCHAND DEAD BY L.RS: 6. VIJU BAI W/O LATE TEKCHAND AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, FLAT NO.59/4 RAAM LEO HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, MARKET ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU. 7. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE TEKCHAND R/AT NO.4, FLAT NO.59/4 RAAM LEO HOUSE, 3RD FLOOR, MARKET ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU. 8. KUSHALCHAND GANDHI S/O LATE TEKCHAND AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT RAJALAKSHMI AGENCIES, NO.217, 1ST MAIN, NEAR IDGA GROUND ALBERT VICTOR ROAD BENGALURU. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024 9. CHAMPALAL GANDHI S/O LATE TEKCHAND AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.254, VEENA KUNJ 1ST 'C' CROSS, 5TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, RANCO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU. 10. RUSIYA SHAH D/O LATE TEKCHAND AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, C/O NO.4, FLAT NO.59/4 RAAM LEO HOUSE 3RD FLOOR, MARKET ROAD BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU. 11. POOJA D/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK. 12. ROJA D/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK. 13. YOGESH S/O LATE REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT BELAVADI VILLAGE, ELAWALA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024 THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED IN RA NO.427/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.10.2019 PASSED IN OS.NO.73/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard the appellant’s counsel and the counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The present second appeal is filed by the purchaser- defendant No.4. His contention is that the property which he had purchased from his vendors may be allotted to him in the Final Decree proceedings (FDP). 3. Counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs does not dispute the fact that defendant No.4 had purchased the property during the pendency of the suit. The trial Court having considered the material on record comes to the conclusion that defendant No.4 is not a bona-fide purchaser. But the fact is that the sale was made by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024 defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the husband of defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and defendant No.3, in turn, sold the properties in favour of defendant No.4. 4. It is not in dispute that the sale has taken place during the pendency of the suit. When the suit for partition is pending before the Court and when the trial Court comes to the conclusion that sale was not made for the need of family necessity, granted 6/25th share in respect of Item No.3, 5 and 10, granted 1/5th in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 and the claim in respect of Item No.4, the suit was dismissed and same is not challenged in respect of Item No.4 is concerned. 5. Now, the plaintiffs’ father is no more and their mother is alive and therefore, the mother is entitled for one share among her children in respect of the share of the father. The appellant is entitled to plead equity before the FDP proceedings. The sale made by some of the defendants is in respect of their shares. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41753 RSA No. 1213 of 2024 6. Hence, no ground is made out by the appellant with regard to the observation made by the trial Court that the sale was not made for the family necessity and that the appellant is not a bona-fide purchaser. 7. There is no any merit to admit the second appeal and frame any substantial question of law. 8. However, the appellant-defendant No.4 is at liberty to plead equity before the FDP Court. 9. With the above observation, the second appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44