- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32124 WP No. 11245 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT PETITION NO. 11245 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI. B. UDAAYASANKAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O SRI. B.S. BASAVARAJ R/AT NO.43, 18TH MAIN ROAD, 13TH B CROSS, 2ND STAGE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B.N. VIVEK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. K.G. SHYLAJA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O K.B.GOWRISHNAKAR R/AT NO.15, CHOWLUGALLI, CUBBONPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. SRI. B. SATISH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O SRI. B.S. BASAVARAJ R/AT NO.43, 18TH MAIN ROAD, 12TH B CROSS, 2ND STAGE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32124 WP No. 11245 of 2021 3. SRI. V. MUNNANJU AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN M/S. SHAKAMBARI CHITS PRIVATE LTD., NO.72, GROUND FLOOR, JUMMA MASJID ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. 4. SRI. SHABTHILAL CHOPPRA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN M/S. SHEETAL NO.72, GROUND FLOOR AND 1ST FLOOR, JUMMA MASJID ROAD, BENGLAURU - 560 002. 5. SRI. DEEPK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, J.J.SILKS, NO.72, GROUND FLOOR, JUMMA MASJID ROAD, BENGLAURU - 560 002. 6. SRI. C.N. JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN NO.72, 1ST FLOOR, JUMMA MASJID ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. 7. SRI. BHERUNATH AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN BHRUNATH TRADERS, NO.72, 1ST FLOOR AND 2ND FLOOR, JUMMA MASJID ROAD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32124 WP No. 11245 of 2021 BENGALURU - 560 002. 8. SRI. BIPIN BAFINA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN M/S. MAYUR CRETIONS, NO.72, 2ND FLOOR, JUMMA MASJID ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA S, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 08.10.2021, NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; VIDE ORDER DATED 02.08.2022, NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH; R3, R4, R5, R7, R8 ARE SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.02.2020 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 BY THE X ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH.NO .26) IN O.S.NO.3042/2016 VIDE ANN-F TO THIS WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THE INSTANT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32124 WP No. 11245 of 2021 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.02.2020 passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.3042/2016 by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’ for short). 2. Sri B.N. Vivek, learned counsel on behalf of Sri Abhinav Ramanand A, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, she filed an application before the Trial Court seeking a direction to defendant Nos.4 to 8 and 10 to deposit the rent amounts before the Court. The said application was opposed by the petitioner/defendant No.2. However, the Trial Court, without any enquiry, proceeded to order deposit of one-third of the rents in the Court. It is submitted that the Trial Court has not assigned any reason while allowing the said application with regard to the contentions raised by the petitioner in the objection. It is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32124 WP No. 11245 of 2021 further submitted that the suit being a suit for partition, there cannot be any prejudging of the issue with regard to the mesne profits, and the said issue is required to be looked into along with the other issues. It is also submitted that the application for deposit of rent by the plaintiff is bereft of details and no material particulars were placed. However, the Trial Court proceeded to allow the said application. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following judgments and seeks to allow the petition. 1. SRI K. UMESH VS. SRI K. KAMALESH reported in WP.No.7875/2019 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, disposed on 22.07.2025. 2. SMT. C. NIRMALA And Others Vs. SMT SHIVAMMA AND OTHERS reported in WP.Nos.54855-857/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, disposed on 11.03.2015. 3. MOHAMED HABIBULLAH Vs. RAHIMATH BEEVI reported in 1979 SCC Online MAD 180. 3. There is no representation for the respondents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32124 WP No. 11245 of 2021 4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and meticulously perused the material available on record. 5. Respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.3042/2016 seeking for the relief of partition and separate possession of one-fourth share by metes and bounds in respect of the suit schedule properties. Admittedly, there are two properties referred to in the suit. The petitioner herein, who is defendant No.2 in the said suit, has denied the assertions made in the plaint. In the said suit, the plaintiff filed an application I.A.No.2 under Section 151 of the CPC seeking a direction to defendant Nos.4 to 8 and 10 to deposit the rent amounts before the Court. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. 6. The Trial Court, under the impugned order, by assigning the reason that the respondent No.1/plaintiff is the sister of the petitioner/defendant No.2 and one of the coparceners entitled to a share in the property, and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32124 WP No. 11245 of 2021 proceeded to order deposit of one-third of the rent. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Trial Court has prejudged the issue with regard to the right of the plaintiff, which is yet to be adjudicated. It is further contended that the application seeking the deposit of the rent is without any material particulars, and that the Trial Court, without conducting any enquiry as to the actual receipt of rent, costs incurred by the petitioner herein, the taxes paid in respect of such properties and without any enquiry, has passed an order without making the petitioner herein as a party to the application. 7. It is to be noticed that the plaintiff claims to be a coparcener of the family and seeks deposit of rent from the tenants. A perusal of the affidavit filed along with the application, at paragraph No.3, indicates that there are 16 shops in the building and that the said shops are fetching income and defendant Nos.4 to 8 and 10 are the tenants in the Schedule-A property and defendant No.2 is also - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32124 WP No. 11245 of 2021 running a firm in suit Item No.2 property. It is to be noticed that the petitioner herein has opposed the said application, primarily contending that the plaintiff has executed a confirmation on 11.04.1978 and has given up all her rights relating to Item No.1 property, and that Item No.2 property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.1. 8. Be that as it may, the Trial Court, under the impugned order, directed defendant Nos.4 to 8 and 10 to deposit one-third of the rent amount before the Court. In my considered view, the Trial Court ought to have considered some of the factors, such as what is the actual rent paid by defendant Nos.4 to 8 and 10, to whom such rent was being paid, what is the actual rent received by such defendants, what are the expenditures incurred by the petitioner towards the maintenance of the said shops are required to be ascertained by the Trial Court and thereafter there can be a direction to deposit the rent. In the absence of any such enquiry and finding, in my - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32124 WP No. 11245 of 2021 considered view, the direction to deposit one-third of the rent to defendant Nos.4 to 8 and 10 is not sustainable. 9. It is to be noticed that the right of the plaintiff to seek partition is definitely required to be adjudicated by the Trial Court in a full-fledged trial. However, with regard to the payment of rent is concerned, the plaintiff/applicant can maintain such an application only if she is able to establish that, in respect of the suit property, the rent is being fetched. The averments in the application accompanying affidavit do not indicate the actual rent received by the petitioner. Hence, I am of the considered view that it would be appropriate for defendant No.2 to place on record the details of the rents received and produce documents or rent agreements before the Trial Court, if such rents are received. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall consider the contentions of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.2 and dispose of the same in accordance with law. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32124 WP No. 11245 of 2021 10. With the aforesaid observations, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed in part. ii) The impugned order dated 12.02.2020 passed on I.A.No.2 filed under Section 151 of the CPC in O.S.No.3042/2016 by the X Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside. iii) The Trial Court is directed to reconsider I.A.No.2 filed under Section 151 of the CPC after providing an opportunity to the parties to the proceedings in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30