- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36541 MSA No. 65 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2023 (RO) BETWEEN: 1. DR. SUJATHA K .C. D/O LATE G. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT D. NO. 716/A, 9TH CORSS 12TH MAIN, 4TH STAGE T.K.LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 009 REP BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT.K.C. TRIVENI, THE 3RD APPELLANT HEREIN. 2. SMT. K.C. HEMAVATHI D/O LATE G. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS REP BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT. K.D. TRIVENI THE 3RD APPELLANT HEREIN. 3. SMT. K.C. TRIVENI D/O LATE G. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. APPELLANTS 2 & 3 ARE R/AT D.NO. 716/A 3RD COSS, 12TH MAIN, 4TH STAGE T.K LAYOUT, MYSURU - 570 009 (THE 3RD APPELLANT PRESENTLY R/AT NO.369, 12TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN DOLLARS COLONY, RMV 2ND STAGE BENGALURU - 560 094. 4. SRI K.N. JAYARAM S/O LINGEGOWDA @ NINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT KATTE KOPPALU VILLAGE HEGGARU DHAKALE, BANNUR HOBLI T. NARASIPURA TALUK PIN 571 110. …APPELLANTS Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36541 MSA No. 65 of 2023 (BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADV.) AND: 1. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O GURULINGA D/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KIRALU VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK PIN - 570 010. 2. SRI R. MANIKANTA S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK, PIN - 570 010. 3. SRI RAMANNA S/O LATE LINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 4. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE R/AT LALITHADRIPURA VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK PIN - 570 010. 5. SRI GURUPAWAN BANDI S/O LATE GORALACHARI BANDI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO. 444, 9TH MAIN 7TH CROSS, K.C. LAYOUT MYSURU, PIN - 570 001. 6. SMT. JYOTHI D/O CHRISTBEL MATHAYAS D/O NATHANYALSALINS AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36541 MSA No. 65 of 2023 R/AT OFFICER'S QUARTERS LALITHMAHAL PALACE MYSURU, PIN - 570 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S. NAGARAJA, ADV., FOR R-1 & R-2; R-3 & R-4 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MSA IS FILED UNDER 54(2) OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.02.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.329/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU. ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 12.03.2020 PASSED IN OS NO.4/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU. REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE TRAIL COURT TO DISPOSE THE MATTER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri R.S. Ravi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B. S. Nagaraja for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.6. 2. Defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment of the First Appellate Court remitting the matter to the trial Court by exercising the power under Order LXI Rule 23 of CPC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36541 MSA No. 65 of 2023 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: A suit came to be filed in O.S.No.4/2011 for the relief of partition and separation possession in respect of the following properties hereinafter referred as 'suit properties'. "SCHEDULE PROPERTY DETAILS Item No.1:- The land bearing Sy.No.105, measuring 3 acres 21 1/2 guntas, bounded on East by : Private Land, West by : Land of Shankara, South by : Land of Chandrashekarappa, North by : Land of Chandrashekarappa. Item No.2:- The land bearing SY.No.105/1 measuring 6 guntas acquired by the K.R. Project for Varuna Canal. The item No.1 and 2 are situated at Sarkarai Uthanahalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk. Item No.3. The land bearing Sy.No.30/7 measuring 1 acre 18 guntas situated at Kiralu Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk Bounded on East by : Canal, West by : Land of Siddaraju North by : Land of Shambulingappa and South by : Land of Shambulingappa. Item No.4. The house property consisting Mangalore Tiled in Janger No.258 assessment No.229 and property No.3 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36541 MSA No. 65 of 2023 measuring East to West 49 feets and South to North 72 feets including vacant site bounded on East by : House of Shambanna, West by : House of Mahadevappa, North by : House of Mahadevu and South by : House of Lingaraju Situated at Lalithadripura Village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk." 4. It is contended that suit properties are the joint family properties and plaintiffs being the children are also entitled for it as the properties belonging to the grandfather of the plaintiffs. Suit on contest came to be dismissed. 5. One of the grounds on which the suit came to be dismissed is that, all the properties possessed by the joint family were not included in the suit and therefore suit for partial partition is not maintainable. 6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiffs approached the First Appellate Court. 7. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records re-appreciated the material facts and following the dictum of this Court in R.F.A.No.842 of 2006 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36541 MSA No. 65 of 2023 dated 22.12.2020 between Karegowda and others v. Ravi and others, noted that, if all properties are not included in the suit, it is always open for the Court to direct the plaintiff to include all the properties and not to dismiss the suit only on that ground. 8. Based on the said reasoning, learned Judge in the First Appellate Court directed the plaintiffs to include all the properties left behind by their ancestors and common propositus into common hotchpotch and proceed with the suit in accordance with law. 9. In that regard, First Appellate Court also set aside the Judgment of the trial Court and remitted the matter to the First Appellate Court with liberty for the plaintiffs to include all the properties to the suit. The validity of the said judgment is called in question in the second appeal. 10. Sri R.S. Ravi, learned Senior Counsel representing the defendants-appellants contended that such a course - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36541 MSA No. 65 of 2023 adopted by the First Appellate Court is incorrect and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 11. Per contra, Sri B.S. Nagaraja, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri K Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.6 supports the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court. 12. Having heard the arguments of both parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, the First Appellate Court recorded cogent and convincing reasons as to the course adopted by the learned trial Judge in not permitting the plaintiffs to include all the properties when it is of the opinion that some properties are left out. 13. Further, it was always open for the defendants also to bring it to the notice of the Court to include properties, which are left out by the plaintiffs by giving the necessary schedule of those properties along with written statement. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36541 MSA No. 65 of 2023 14. In a suit for partition, there is no strict rule of pleadings as to the plaintiff and defendant and in a suit for partition except the subsequent purchasers, all are plaintiffs and all are defendants. 15. Therefore, the First Appellate Court rightly observed that the trial Court ought to have permitted the plaintiffs to include the left out properties and not to dismiss the suit on the ground of partial partition in view of the legal principles enunciated by this Court in the case of Karegoda (Supra). 16. Under such circumstances, when there is an opportunity granted to the plaintiffs to include the properties and adjudicate the suit on merits, defendants should not have any objection as the objection of the defendant is basis for the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court. 17. In further, if any of the properties i.e, sought to be now included is not belonging to joint family or the ancestral property, it is always open for the defendant to raise necessary objection in the written statement by filing additional written - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36541 MSA No. 65 of 2023 statement and requesting the Court to frame appropriate issues thereon. 18. With that liberty for the defendants, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment of the First Appellate Court needs no interference. Hence, the following:- ORDER i. Miscellaneous *Second Appeal is disposed of. ii. Parties are at liberty to canvas all favourable points in their behalf in accordance with law. iii. Taking note of the fact that the suit is of the year 2011 the matter needs to be disposed of as early as possible. In that regard, the parties shall appear before the Trial Court without further notice on 08.10.2025. iv. The observations made by this Court shall not affect rights of the parties in the fresh trial before the Trial Court. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE NMS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 *Corrected vide Court order dated 30.09.2025