- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10538 RFA No. 899 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 OF 2020 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: VISAKA INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED (A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956), HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT VIKASA TOWER, 1-8-30-/69/3, SP ROAD, SECUNDERABAD 500 003 TELANGANA, AND BRANCH OFFICE AT NO. 27/1, NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, KEMPANADODDERI POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 572138, KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT AND AUTHORED SIGNATORY, VENKATESH MADDIPATI S/O M.R.K. MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KISHAN G S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIKKATHAYANAMMA W/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED 37 YEARS 2. NARASIMHARAJU S/O. NARASINGAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS 3. LOKAMMA D/O. NARASINGAIAH, AGED 29 YEARS 4. NARASINGAIAH S/O. LATE. DODDANARASAIAH, AGED 65 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10538 RFA No. 899 of 2020 ALL ARE R/O. KEMPANADODDERI KOAR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK NOW R/AT SOREKUNTE BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK – 572 128 …RESPONDENTS (BY MISS LAVANYA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.G.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVCOATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC 1908 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.01.2018 PASSED IN OS.No.116/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, 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 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 22.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.116/2012 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the said suit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 – plaintiffs against respondent No.4-defendant for partition and separate possession in the suit schedule immovable property was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10538 RFA No. 899 of 2020 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent Nso.1 to 4 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against respondents No.4-defendant for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable property and for other reliefs. In the said suit, respondent No.4, who was the sole defendant in the suit was placed exparte and the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order decreeing the suit in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3-plaintiffs against respondent No.4- defendant. Subsequently, the appellant herein claiming to be a purchaser of the entire suit schedule property from the sole defendant has preferred the present appeal inter alia contending that though he had purchased the suit schedule property vide registered sale deed dated 11.08.2004, much prior to institution of the suit, i.e., in the year 2012 was not made a party to the suit nor was he aware about the same and as such, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Trial Court for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10538 RFA No. 899 of 2020 reconsideration of the suit afresh, by providing an opportunity to the appellant to contest the suit on merits and in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondents, the respondents have no objection for the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court to be set aside and the matter may be remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law, by impleading/adding the appellant as additional defendant No.2 to the suit and to proceed further in accordance with law. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the matter back to the Trial Court for Reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and decree dated 22.01.2018 passed in O.S.No.116/2012 by the III - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10538 RFA No. 899 of 2020 Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumakuru, is hereby set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law. (iv) The Trial Court is directed to implead the appellant as additional defendant No.2 and by arraying the respondent No.4 as defendant No.1 in the suit. (v) The appellant (defendant No.2) and respondents i.e., the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 09.03.2026, without awaiting further notice from the Trial Court. (vi) Liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant (defendant No.2) to file written statement and contest the suit on merits. (vii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept/left open and no opinion is expressed on merits/demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC: List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2