- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14845 RFA No. 985 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 985 OF 2025 (PAR) BETWEEN: SRI. JAYAPPA @ N.S. JAYARAMAREDDY S/O LATE SUBBAREDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT DRUTHA NILAYA, 7TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, RUKMANI NAGAR, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560073 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH K., ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)) AND: 1. SMT. VASANTHA W/O MUNIRAJA REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.628, 14TH 'A' MAIN ROAD MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560034 2. SMT. SARASWATHI W/O SRINIVAS REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT NO.115, LAKSHMI NILAYA 5TH CROSS, WARD NO.11, HONGASANDRA, BEGUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560068 3. SRI. N.S.NAGARAJ (ITI) S/O LATE BANASWADI SUBBAREDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT DODDANAKUNDI VILLAGE BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560037 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. CHANDRASHEKAR AND SRI. ABHILASH, ADVOCATES FOR CAVEATORS/RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14845 RFA No. 985 of 2025 THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2025 PASSED IN FDP NO.171/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/O XX RULE 18(1) AND (2) R/W SECTION 54 OF CPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL JUDGMENT In this appeal, the appellant has challenged an order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'final decree Court') in FDP No.171/2012, by which it accepted the report of a Court Commissioner partitioning one of the suit properties. 2. (i) A suit in O.S.No.1749/2006 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' share in the suit schedule properties. The suit was filed in respect of two survey numbers namely, land in Sy.No.8/3, measuring 2 acres including 8 guntas of kharab and Sy.No.192/1, measuring 18 guntas, both situate at Doddanekundi Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. The suit was decreed. The plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 then filed FDP No.171/2012 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14845 RFA No. 985 of 2025 for giving effect to the preliminary decree granted in O.S.No.1749/2006. The final decree Court appointed a Commissioner for division of both the aforesaid properties. Accordingly, the Survey Commissioner submitted a report by demarcating portions of the properties as per the shares of the plaintiffs in Sy.No.8/3. In so far as Sy.No.192/1 is concerned, the Survey Commissioner specifically mentioned that "already houses are constructed over Sy.No.192/1 and hence, I cannot conduct the survey physically. But I have identified open spaces through total station method." (ii) The final decree Court after perusing the report of the Survey Commissioner, accepted the division in so far as Sy.No.8/3 is concerned. However, in so far as Sy.No.192/1 is concerned, it held as follows:- "I have perused the said report and found that there is no any irregularity/illegality committed by the Court Commissioner. He has divided Sy.No.192/1 measuring 0-18 guntas and shown the property as available on the spot. As per the said report, he has allotted the property marked as IIA to IIC, totally measuring 0.03 guntas 24 annas in favour of respondent No.3/Jayappa @ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14845 RFA No. 985 of 2025 Jayaramareddy, 0.04 guntas 8 annas in IA & IB to respondent No.2/N.S. Nagaraj, 0.04 guntas 8 annas in IIIA & IIIB are allotted to petitioner No.2/Smt. Saraswathi and 0.04 guntas 8 annas in IV is allotted to petitioner No.1/Smt. Vasantha." (iii) The final decree Court after accepting the report, passed an order allotting IA and IB, measuring 0.03 guntas and 0.01 gunta 8 annas in favour of Smt. Saraswathi/petitioner No.2 before it, 0.04 guntas 8 annas identified as IV to petitioner No.1/Vasantha, portion shown as IIA, IIB and IIC, totally measuring 0.04 guntas and 8 annas to respondent No.3- Jayappa and IIIA and IIIB measuring 0.04 guntas and 8 annas to respondent No.2/N.S. Nagaraj. (iv) Being aggrieved by the said demarcation and apportionment, the appellant is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Sy.No.192/1 was bound by the boundaries mentioned in the decree and therefore, the division ought to be in accordance with the boundaries mentioned in the decree. He contends that the Survey Commissioner was appointed to divide Sy.No.192/1. Instead of identifying the land in Sy.No.192/1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14845 RFA No. 985 of 2025 within the boundaries mentioned in the decree, he had reported that several houses had come up in the property and that he had identified vacant spaces in the said property and had divided the same. He contends that this is impermissible as the Survey Commissioner cannot arrogate to himself the power of the Civil Court. If there is any alteration in the boundaries, it must have been done by the Civil Court and not by the Commissioner. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Survey Commissioner has identified 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.192/1, which are vacant and he has equitably distributed the land amongst all the sharers. He therefore, contends that there is no illegality about the way in which the Survey Commissioner has divided the properties. He therefore, contends that no interference is warranted with the order passed by the final decree Court accepting the report of the Survey Commissioner and modifying the shares. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14845 RFA No. 985 of 2025 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. The only point for consideration that arises in this appeal is, "Whether the Final Decree Court was right in abdicating its power to the Court Commissioner appointed to divide Sy.No.192/1 by partitioning it not as per the preliminary decree"? 7. A copy of the preliminary decree granted in O.S.No.1749/2006 shows that Sy.No.192/1 measuring 18 guntas situated at Doddanekundi Village was bound on the east by road, west by Rama Reddy's property, north by private property and south by Lakshmaiah Reddy's property. It is not the case of the respondents before the final decree Court that Sy.No.192/1 with the boundaries mentioned above does not exist or that the parties to the suit had developed the portions of land in Sy.No.192/1. Once the Survey Commissioner was appointed to identify Sy.No.192/1 within the boundaries mentioned in the decree and to divide the properties as per the preliminary decree, he ought to have first identified the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14845 RFA No. 985 of 2025 property by identifying the boundaries and thereafter, must have divided the properties equitably as per the decree. However, it appears from the impugned order that the Survey Commissioner had reported to the Court that several houses had come up in Sy.No.192/1 and therefore, he cannot conduct a survey physically and that he has identified open spaces through total station method. This therefore, gives an impression that within the boundaries of Sy.No.192/1 as mentioned in the suit there was an extent of land larger than 0- 18 guntas. The final decree Court after receiving such a report, must have either called upon the parties to seek for amendment of the decree in so far as the boundaries of Sy.No.192/1 is concerned or must have taken necessary steps to identify the land within the boundaries mentioned therein. On the contrary, the final decree Court has accepted the report of the Survey Commissioner and thereafter, allotted the shares as identified by the Survey Commissioner to the shares of the appellant and the respondents. It is apparent that this division is not in consonance with the preliminary decree granted, as the boundaries mentioned in the preliminary decree do not correspond with the boundaries mentioned in the report of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14845 RFA No. 985 of 2025 Survey Commissioner or in the final decree passed by the Court. In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the final decree Court in so far as Sy.No.192/1 is concerned has to be set aside to ensure that the final decree drawn is in line with the preliminary decree. 8. In view of the above, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) This appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in FDP No.171/2012 is set aside in so far as Sy.No.192/1 of Doddanekundi Village, Varthur hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, is concerned. (iii) In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and another v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and others [2022 (16) SCC 71], it is open for the parties to file appropriate application to alter the boundaries of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14845 RFA No. 985 of 2025 Sy.No.192/1 and it is for the final decree Court to decide whether such alteration is feasible and is just and proper and thereafter, proceed to pass appropriate orders. (iv) The final decree Court shall conclude this exercise within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. (v) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36