- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 2795 OF 2024 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAMACHANDRA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O LATE LAKSHMANA PRABHU KANYANA, POST HEBRI VILLAGE AND TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 112. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA .K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LALITHA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS W/O LATE. SUNDARA PRABHU 2. USHA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O. LATE SUNDARA PRABHU 3. ASHA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS D/O LATE SUNDARA PRABHU R1 TO R3 ARE PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT KELABAILUMANE, KANYANA HEBRI VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SANNAKKIBETTU, HERA VILLAGE Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 AND PARKALA POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 112. 4. SMT. BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O LATE GANAPATHI PRABHU 5. SMT. VIDYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS D/O LATE GANAPATHI PRABHU 6. VEERENDRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O LATE GANAPATHI PRABHU R4 TO R6 ARE RESIDENTS OF SANNAKKIBETTU, HERA VILLAGE AND PARKALA POST UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 107. …RESPONDENTS (R1 TO R6 ARE SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.10.2024 PASSED IN FDP NO.9/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.54 AND ORDER XXVI RULE 13 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by the respondent No.1 in FDP.No.9/2014 assailing the final decree drawn by the FDP Court in FDP.No.9/2014. 2. The present appellant is primarily aggrieved by the Commissioner’s report insofar as Schedule ‘D’ properties are concerned. Pursuant to the order passed by the FDP Court appointing a Court Commissioner to submit a feasibility report, the Commissioner submitted his report indicating that Schedule ‘A’ properties are to be allotted to the present appellant, Schedule ‘B’ properties to the petitioners/plaintiffs and Schedule ‘C’ properties to respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(c). The limited controversy in the present appeal is confined only to the items comprised in Schedule ‘D’ properties. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, taking this Court through the records of the FDP Court, would submit that pursuant to the order dated 26.09.2024, both - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 the petitioners/plaintiffs and respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(c) filed independent memos relinquishing their claim over (i) the family residential house with surrounding extent measuring 0.04 acres, (ii) hatti kottige (cattle shed) with surrounding extent measuring 0.02 acres, and (iii) daivada gudi measuring 0.01.50 acres, and consented for exclusive allotment of the said three items in favour of respondent No.1, in addition to the properties described in Schedule ‘A’ of the Commissioner’s report. It is contended that though the FDP Court, by order dated 26.09.2024, resolved to allot the said three Schedule ‘D’ items exclusively to respondent No.1, while drawing the final decree it accepted the feasibility report without adverting to the earlier order and the memos insofar as Schedule ‘D’ properties are concerned. Respondent No.1 is therefore aggrieved by the non-grant of exclusive rights over the aforesaid three items, which has necessitated the present appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 4. This Court issued notice to the respondents. Though served, the respondents have not chosen to appear or contest the proceedings. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records of the Trial Court. This Court has carefully considered the memo filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on 01.10.2024 and the memo filed by respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(c) on 01.10.2024. This Court has also adverted to the orders passed by the FDP Court on 26.09.2024 and 19.10.2024. 6. On the basis of the rival contentions and the material on record, the following points arise for consideration: i) Whether the final decree drawn by the FDP Court in FDP No.9/2014 suffers from perversity insofar as it retains Schedule ‘D’ properties for joint enjoyment by all the parties to the final decree proceedings, contrary to the orders dated 26.09.2024 and 19.10.2024 and the memos filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners and respondents? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 ii) What order? Finding on Point No.(i): 7. Before this Court proceeds to examine as to whether the three items comprised in Schedule ‘D’ properties are required to be exclusively allotted to the appellant/respondent No.1, it deems it appropriate to first advert to the relevant order sheets passed by the FDP Court. The orders dated 26.09.2024 and 19.10.2024 assume significant relevance for proper adjudication of the present controversy. Hence, both the orders are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: Order dated 26.09.2024 "The 1st respondent has proved that he has effected improvements in the suit property and is entitled for house, hatti kottige, daivada gudi, to his share, under equity. The petitioners and respondents No.2(a) to (c) are also entitled for access to the daivada gudi." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 Order dated 19.10.2024 "The petition filed by the petitioners under Section 54 and Order XXVI Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure is allowed. The court commissioner's report dated 22-02- 2024 along with sketch is hereby accepted and commissioner report and sketch forms part of the final decree. 'A' schedule property shown in the commissioner's report and family house and its surrounding (measuring 0.04 acre), hatti kottige (cattle shed) and its surrounding (measuring 0.02 acre), daivada gudi (measuring 0.01.50 acre) is allotted to the share of respondent No.1. 'B' schedule property shown in the commissioner's report is allotted to the joint share of petitioners. 'C' schedule property shown in the commissioner's report is allotted to the joint share of respondents No.2(a) to 2(c). The remaining lands shown as road, water channel (thodu) mentioned in 'D' schedule of the commissioner's report is allotted to the joint shares of all the sharers. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 Draw final decree after the parties paying the necessary non-judicial stamp papers." (emphasis supplied) 8. On a careful reading of the aforesaid two orders, it is evident that the FDP Court, upon receipt and consideration of the Commissioner’s feasibility report, consciously examined the equities arising in favour of respondent No.1. The order dated 26.09.2024 clearly records a finding that respondent No.1, having effected improvements to the residential house, hatti kottige and daivada gudi, was entitled to retain the said properties in his share on equitable considerations. The FDP Court, therefore, indicated its inclination to allot the said three items in Schedule ‘D’ to respondent No.1. 9. The subsequent order dated 19.10.2024 reiterates the said position in unequivocal terms, recording that in addition to the properties proposed to be allotted under Schedule ‘A’, respondent No.1 is entitled to retain - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 the family residential house, hatti kottige and daivada gudi. Thus, the judicial determination on equity and entitlement stood crystallized by virtue of these two orders. 10. It is in the backdrop of these categorical findings and observations that the plaintiffs as well as respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(c) filed independent memos relinquishing their claims over the aforesaid three items and consenting for their exclusive allotment to respondent No.1. Since these memos form the foundation for the present grievance and have a direct bearing on the legality of the final decree drawn, this Court deems it appropriate to advert to the contents of the said memos. The same are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: "Memo filed on behalf of the petitioners: It is submitted as follows: That in view of the order passed by this court dated 26-09-2024, Family House and its surrounding (measuring 0.04 acres) and Hatti Kottige (cattle - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 shed) and its surrounding (measuring 0.02 acres), daivada gudi (measuring 0.01.50 acres), may be allotted to the share of the 1st respondent in addition to the properties described in the Schedule A of the Commission Report. That the properties mentioned in Schedule B of the Commission Report may be allotted to the shares of these petitioners separately. That the remaining lands shown as Road, Water Channel (Thodu) mentioned in the Schedule D of the Report may be allotted to the Joint shares of all the parties to this petition. Therefore it is prayed that Final Decree may be passed, in interest of justice." "Memo filed on behalf of the respondents 2(a) to 2(c): It is submitted as follows: That in view of the order passed by this court dated 26-09-2024, Family House and its surrounding (measuring 0.04 acres) and Hatti Kottige (cattle shed) and its surrounding (measuring 0.02 acres), daivada gudi (measuring 0.01.50 acres), may be allotted to the share of the 1st respondent in addition to the properties described in the Schedule A of the Commission Report. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 That the properties mentioned in Schedule C of the Commission Report may be allotted to the shares of these respondents separately. That the remaining lands shown as Road, Water Channel (Thodu) mentioned in the Schedule D of the Report may be allotted to the Joint shares of all the parties to this petition. Therefore it is prayed that Final Decree may be passed, in interest of justice." 11. On a careful perusal of the two memos filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs and respondent Nos.2(a) to 2(c), this Court finds that the relinquishment is clear, categorical and unconditional. The memos are not vague or contingent in nature. The parties have, in unequivocal terms, declared that they are giving up their respective claims over the three specific items comprised in Schedule ‘D’, namely: (i) the family residential house together with its surrounding extent, (ii) hatti kottige (cattle shed) along with its surrounding extent, and (iii) daivada gudi. The memos further state that these three items shall be - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 exclusively allotted to the share of respondent No.1, in addition to the properties described in Schedule ‘A’ of the Commissioner’s feasibility report. 12. When these voluntary memos are read in conjunction with the earlier judicial orders dated 26.09.2024 and 19.10.2024, it becomes abundantly clear that the FDP Court had already recognized the equitable entitlement of respondent No.1 to retain the said three items on account of improvements effected by him. The subsequent relinquishment by the other sharers only fortified and formalized what had already been indicated by the Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction in final decree proceedings. 13. It is in this backdrop that the action of the FDP Court, while drawing the final decree, requires close scrutiny. Despite having passed two specific orders acknowledging the entitlement of respondent No.1 and despite the filing of independent memos by the other - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 sharers expressly consenting for exclusive allotment, the FDP Court, without adverting to its own earlier orders and without assigning any reasons for deviation, proceeded to draw the final decree retaining the said three items for joint enjoyment by all parties. Such a course is not only inconsistent with the record but is also contrary to the express consensus placed before the Court. 14. To this limited extent, the final decree suffers from manifest perversity, as it overlooks material orders and binding statements made by the parties themselves. The omission to give effect to the recorded relinquishment and the earlier judicial determination renders the decree vulnerable to appellate interference. Accordingly, Point No.(i) is answered in the affirmative, holding that the final decree is vitiated to the extent indicated above. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 Finding on Point No.ii: 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The final decree passed in FDP No.9/2014 stands modified to the limited extent indicated herein. (iii) The allotment of Schedule ‘A’, Schedule ‘B’ and Schedule ‘C’ properties in favour of the respective parties, as determined by the FDP Court, is affirmed and shall remain undisturbed. (iv) Insofar as Schedule ‘D’ properties are concerned, the following three items, namely: a) Sy.No.18 – Hissa No.1AI measuring 0.02 acres (danada kottige), b) Sy.No.18 – Hissa No.9V measuring 0.04 acres (vaasada mane), and c) Sy.No.18 – Hissa No.9I measuring 0.01½ acres (daivada gudi), - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8050 RFA No. 2795 of 2024 are hereby exclusively allotted to respondent No.1. (v) The Office is directed to draw a modified/fresh final decree in terms of this judgment. (vi) No order as to costs. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17