- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53174 RFA No. 639 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT KALPANA GURUPRASAD W/O LATE M K GURUPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.1765, 34TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.S.RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT VISHALAKSHI M V K SASTRY W/O LATE M V K SASTRY, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, 2. SMT.(DR). M K USHA D/O LATE M V K SASTRY, W/O DR.ANAND PRAKASH, AGED MAJOR, RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT 5-A, KUMARAKRUPA ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU-560010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M ARUN PONAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATORS/RESPONDENTS) *** Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53174 RFA No. 639 of 2024 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 13.12.2023 PASSED IN O.S.NO.3111/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-13). THIS RFA, 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 by the defendant in O.S.No.3111/2017 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.12.2023, passed by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereby the said suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs against the appellant/ defendant was decreed by the Trial Court for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share each in the sole suit schedule property. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/defendant and learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53174 RFA No. 639 of 2024 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondents/plaintiffs are the wife and daughter of late M.V.K. Sastry, who had a deceased son by name Guruprasad, whose wife is the appellant herein, being the daughter-in-law of the said M.V.K. Sastry and the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs contended that the aforesaid M.V.K. Sastry expired on 06.06.2006, leaving behind his wife/plaintiff No.1, daughter/plaintiff No.2 and son/late Guruprasad, husband of defendant to succeed to his estate as his legal representatives and upon the demise of the said Guruprasad, the plaintiffs and defendant became entitled to one third share each in the suit schedule property. 3.1. It is also contented by the plaintiffs in the suit that since the aforesaid M.V.K. Sastry died intestate, the plaintiffs and defendant would be entitled to 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule property and since the requests and demands made by the plaintiffs to the defendant to effect partition and put them in separate possession of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53174 RFA No. 639 of 2024 their one third share each in the suit schedule property were not complied with by the defendant, the plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their legitimate one third share in the suit schedule property and for other reliefs. 4. The appellant/defendant filed her Written Statement and contested the suit, pursuant to which, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: "Issues: 1. Whether plaintiff proves that Defendant and themselves are legal heirs of M.V.K. Shastry? 2. Whether the plaintiff prove that they entitled partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property? 3. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for suit relief's sought for? 4. What Order or decree? Addl. Issues: 1. Does the defendant proves that suit of the plaintiff not maintainable? 2. Does the defendant proves that suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary party? - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53174 RFA No. 639 of 2024 3. What order or decree?" 5. The second plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and documentary evidence at Exhibits P-1 to P-10 were got marked, while the appellant/defendant examined herself as DW-1 and documentary evidence at Exhibits D-1 to D-16 were got marked. 6. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the specific plea put forth by the appellant/defendant that the suit for partial partition without including the two other properties at Amanikere, Kandavara, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapura taluk as per Exhibits D-12 and D-13 among the array of properties to the suit for partial partition was not maintainable, answered Additional Issue Nos.1 and 2 against the appellant/defendant. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that since the aforesaid M.V.K. Sastry died intestate, the plaintiffs and defendant would be entitled to one third share each in the suit schedule properties and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53174 RFA No. 639 of 2024 consequently decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/ defendant submits that while the appellant/defendant does not have any objection for the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in relation to the only/sole suit schedule property situated at Banashankari, Bengaluru, is concerned, the impugned judgment and decree insofar as it relates to rejecting the plea of the appellant/defendant that the other Joint Family Properties at Chikkaballapura were not included, may be set aside and the said question be left open to be decided by the Trial Court during the course of final decree proceedings and the Final Decree Court may be directed to dispose of the said final decree proceedings by reserving liberty in favour of both parties to include other alleged Joint Family Properties including the properties at Chikkaballapura and adjudicate upon the said issue, in accordance with law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53174 RFA No. 639 of 2024 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs submits that he does not have any objection for the impugned judgment and decree to be modified by confirming the impugned judgment and decree in relation to the suit schedule property at Banashankari, Bengaluru is concerned and by leaving open all rival contentions as regards alleged additional Joint Family Properties to be determined, adjudicated/decided during the course of final decree proceedings and all rival contentions in this regard may be kept open. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record which clearly indicates that the only/sole suit schedule property situated at Banashankari, Bengaluru was a Joint Family Property in which the plaintiffs and defendant are entitled to one third share each, as correctly held by the Trial Court, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the present appeal by modifying the impugned judgment and decree by confirming the same in relation to the property at - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53174 RFA No. 639 of 2024 Banashankari, Bengaluru and leaving open all contentions pending to be decided in final decree proceedings in relation to the alleged Joint Family Properties other than the suit Schedule property involved in the present suit/appeal and by leaving open all contentions in this regard. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is hereby disposed of. (ii) Impugned judgment and decree dated 13.12.2023, passed by the V Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.3111/2017, insofar as it relates to passing a decree for partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share each in the only/sole suit schedule property at Banashankari, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53174 RFA No. 639 of 2024 (iii) However, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court insofar as it relates to all other alleged Joint Family Properties other than the suit schedule property at Banashankari, Bengaluru, is hereby modified, by directing that all rival contentions in relation to all other alleged Joint Family Properties other than the suit schedule property at Banashankari, Bengaluru, are kept open to be decided in the Final Decree Proceedings and it is made clear that no opinion is expressed on the same. (iv) The final Decree Court before whom the final decree proceedings are to be initiated, is directed to adjudicate upon all rival contentions in respect of the alleged Joint Family Properties and all rival contentions in this regard are kept open. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53174 RFA No. 639 of 2024 (v) The final decree Court shall proceed further in respect of the suit schedule property at Banashankari, Bengaluru, pursuant to the impugned judgment and decree, which stands confirmed by this order. In view of disposal of main appeal, pending I.A.No.1/2024 for stay does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7