- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100207 OF 2021 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. T. PARAMESHWARA REDDY, S/O LATE T. VENKATAREDDY AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONATHA LINGANNA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI. 2. T. THIMMAREDDY, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONATHA LINGANNA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI. 3. T. SUDARSHAN REDDY AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONATHA LINGANNA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI. PROPRIETOR OF BHARATHI MEDICAL STORE SAND PARTNER OF NEW BHARATHI MEDICALS AND BHARATHI MEDICAL AGENCY AND BHARATI MEDICAL CENTER. 4. BHASKAR REDDY S/O. LAKSHMIKANTHA REDDY AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONATHA LINGANNA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.03.01 12:09:56 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 5. BHARATHI MEDICAL STORES (M/S. SRI. BHARATI MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORES) BY ITS PROPRIETOR, T. SUDHARSHAN REDDY SITATED AT KAPPAGAL ROAD, M.V.NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, BALLARI. 6. THE NEW BHARATHI MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORES BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SUDARSHAN REDDY SON OF LATE VENKATAREDDY R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONTHA LINGANNA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI. 7. BHARATI MEDICAL AGENCY BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SUDARSHAN REDDY SON OF LATE VENKATAREDDY R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONTHA LINGANNA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI. 8. THE BHARATI MEDICAL AGENCY BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SUDARSHAN REDDY, SON OF LATE VENKATAREDDY R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONTHA LINGANNA COLONY, GANDHINAGAR, BALLARI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. T. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY S/O LATE T. VENKATAREDDY AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE, R/O: A.GONAL VILLAGE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 ALUR MANDALAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH STATE-518395. 2. SMT. RAJESHWARAMMA W/O M. VEERAREDDY AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: AGASAUR VILLAGE, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583101. 3. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O MALLAREDDY AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: NO.189/A, SOMESHWARA NILAYA, KAPPAGAL ROAD, 3RD LEFT, BALLARI-583101. 4. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O T. KANTHAREDDY AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: BEHIND GANESH PETROL BUNK, OPP. BHARATHI MEDICAL AGENCY, PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. 5. SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O RAMESHREDDY AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O: A AGRAHARA VILLAGE, YEMMIGANUR TALUK, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHARA PRADESH STATE-518360. 6. SREEDHARAREDDY G.T. S/O T. THIMMAREDDY AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. PLOT NO.84/1, BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONTHALINGANNA COLONY, WARD NO.21, BALLARI-583101. 7. RAJASHEKARA G.T., S/O T. PARAMESHWARAREDDY AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONTHALINGANNA COLONY, WARD NO.21, BALLARI-583101. 8. T. KANTH REDDY, S/O T. HANUMANTHAREDDY AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONTHALINGANNA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. 9. SMT. JYOTHI SUDARSHAN REDDY, W/O SUDHARSHAN REDDY, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONTHALINGANNA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. 10. SRI. T. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O THIMMAREDDY AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, PARTNER, M/S BHARATHI MEDAL AGENCIES, R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONTHALINGANNA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. 11. BHARATHI W/O R. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, PARTNER, M/S BHARATHI MEDAL AGENCIES, R/O: BASAVA NILAYA, NEAR PARK, SONTHALINGANNA COLONY, GANDHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. 12. K. RAJASHEKAR REDDY S/O K. MALLAREDDY AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, PARTNER NEW BHARATHI MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORES OPP. KSRTC OLD BUS STAND, BALLARI-583101. 13. J. UMAKANTH REDDY S/O J. LAKSHMIREDDY AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, THE PARTNER, NEW BHARATHI MEDICAL AND GENERAL STORES OPP. KSRTC OLD BUS STAND BALLARI-583101. 14. J. SHIVAREDDY S/O J. LAKSHMIREDDY AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, THE PARTNER, NEW BHARATHI MEDICAL - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 AND GENERAL STORES OPP. KSRTC OLD BUS STAND BALLARI-583101. 15. T. MANJUNATH REDDY, S/O T. LAKSHMIKANTHAREDDY, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, PARTNER, BHARATHI MEDICAL CENTER, BALLARI R/O: BHARATHI MEDICAL AGENCIES, SHARANAPPA COMPOUND, PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. 16. G.T. SREEDHAR REDDY S/O THIMMAREDDY AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, PARTNER, BHARATHI MEDICAL CENTER, BALLARI. R/O: BHARATHI MEDICAL AGENCIES, SHARANAPPA COMPOUND, PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. 17. T. SHIVAKUMAR REDDY, S/O T. LAKSHMIKANTH REDDY AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, PARTNER, NEW BHARATHI MEDICAL CENTER, BALLARI. R/O: BHARATHI MEDICAL AGENCIES, SHARANAPPA COMPOUND, PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI-583101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R2 TO R17 IS SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 41 R/W. SEC. 96 OF CPC., PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 17.02.2020 PASSED IN O.S.NO.308/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BALLARI, DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 17.02.2020, passed in OS No.308/2014 by the learned Ist Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari. The appellants were defendants No.1 to 3, and 8 to 12, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and other respondents were the other defendants. 2. For convenience, parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial court. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is contended that the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 7 are the members of a Hindu Joint Family and the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 7. Defendant No. 8 is the proprietor of the business managed by defendant No.3. On behalf of the joint family and Defendants No.9 to 11 are the partnership firms in which the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 7 had directed the joint family funds for the purpose of carrying out the business. Defendant No. 12 and the son of the plaintiff. It is contended that no partition is effected between them. The plaintiff requested the defendants No. 1 to 7 to effect partition, defendants No. 1 to 7 refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendants filed written statements contending that the suit for partial partition is not maintainable. It is stated that the plaintiff has not included the agricultural land measuring 20.35 acres situated at A. Gonehal and Kammarchedu village in Alur Taluk. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 5. The trial court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that himself and defendants are joint family members and plaint B to E schedule properties are their coparcenary and joint family properties as contended by the plaintiff in the plaint? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is holding shares in the defendants No.9 to 11 partnership firm as contended in para 21 of the plaint? 3. Whether the defendants No.1 to 3 and 8 to 11 prove that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for non inclusion of all properties? 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share in all the suit properties as prayed for in this suit? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 7. What order or decree? 6. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW1 and marked 45 documents as Ex.P1 to P45. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1, two witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3 and marked one document as exhibit D1. After recording the evidence, hearing on both sides and on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the trial court answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 6 in the affirmative, issue Nos.3 to 5 in the negative, issue No.7 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed. It is declared that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/8th share in suit ‘B’ to ‘E’ schedule properties. Defendants No.1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 aggrieved by the impugned judgment, filed this Regular First Appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the defendants/appellants and learned counsel for the plaintiff. 8. Learned counsel for the defendants/appellants submits that the plaintiff has not included the agricultural land measuring 20.35 acres situated at A.Gonehal and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 Kammarchedu village in Alur Taluk. Hence, the suit for partial partition is not maintainable. He submits that the plaintiff may be directed to include the aforesaid property in the FDP proceedings and accordingly this appeal may be disposed of. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a memo stating that the plaintiff filed a suit in OS No.308/2014 and the said suit was decreed. It is stated that the appellants have taken the agricultural land measuring 20.35 acres, located at A.Gonehal and Kammarchedu village in Alur Taluk. It is stated that respondent No.1 has no objection for including the said property as a suit schedule property and draw the final decree, confirming the judgment and preliminary decree dated 17.02.2020, passed in OS No.308/2014, on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ballari. 10. Heard and perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 11. In view of the memo dated 27/02/2025, filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff that respondent No.1 is ready to include the aforesaid property in the FDP proceedings and also add necessary parties in the final decree proceedings, nothing survives for consideration in this appeal. 12. In view of the memo filed by respondent No.1- plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share in the aforesaid landed property. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of directing the plaintiff to include land measuring 20.35 acres situated at A.Gonehal and Kammarchedu village, in the Final Decree Proceedings and on array of necessary parties in the Final decree proceedings. 14. In view of the joint memo filed, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court have been modified. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share in agricultural land measuring 20.35 acres - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3921-DB RFA No. 100207 of 2021 situated at A.Gonehal and Kammarchedu village in Alur Taluk. No order as to the costs. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE HMB Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9