- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32089 WP No. 17980 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. 17980 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. V.G. LAKSHMIDEVI W/O LATE G. LOKESHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE 2. G.L.KESHAVA REDDY @ G.L.CHANNAKESHAVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC: AGIRCULTURIST, 3. G.L. BHEEMA REDDY S/O LATE G. LOKESHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, ALL RESIDENT OF GUDDADA RANGAVVANAHALLY VILLAGE, (G.R.HALLY VILLAGE), KASABA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA B.M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. G. ANANTHA REDDY S/O LATE GOWDARA CHANNAPPA Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32089 WP No. 17980 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O GUDDADA RANGAVVANAHALLY VILLAGE, (G.R.HALLY VILLAGE), KASABA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501. 2. SMT. ARANJYOTHI W/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, 3. SMT. K. MENAKSHI W/O M.R. NATESH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. K. NAGARAJ S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING BEHIND CHANNAKESHAVA TEMPLE, C.K.PURA, CHITRADURGA CITY - 577 501. 5. G.C. THIPPESWAMY S/O LATE GOWDARA CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O 7TH CROSS EAST J.C.R EXTENSION, CHITRADURGA CITY - 577 501. 6. G. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE GOWDARA CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLRUSTS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32089 WP No. 17980 of 2021 RESPONDENT NO.5 ND 6 RESIDENT OF GUDDADA RANGAVVANAHALLY VILLAGE, (G.R.HALLY VILLAGE), KASABA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501. 7. P. RAMESH S/O P.BUCHAIAH, MAJOR, 3RD CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, BELLARY - 583 101. 8. B. SUVARANAMMA W/O K. KRISHNA REDDY AGED 84 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O KASAVARAHATTY VILLAGE, HALEDYAMAVVANAHALLY POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.T. JAGAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R5; VIDE ORDER DATED 01.10.2021, NOTICE TO R1 TO R4; R6 TO R8 STANDS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CHITRADURGA IN O.S.145/2016 DATED 13.09.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.12 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-M TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32089 WP No. 17980 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the Order dated 13.09.2021 passed in O.S.No.145/2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga (for short the 'Trial Court'), 2. Heard Sri.Siddappa B.M, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.T.Jagan Mohan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed a suit for partition and separate possession. In the said suit, the petitioners are defendant Nos.3 to 5 and in the said suit, the defendants have also raised the counter claim. In the said suit, the defendant Nos.3 to 5 filed an application seeking prayer to issue direction to defendant No.1 to deposit an amount of ₹ 1,86,38,440/- out of awarded compensation of ₹ 3,72,76,881/-. The said application was opposed by defendant No.1. The Trial Court under the impugned order rejected the said application. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32089 WP No. 17980 of 2021 4. The primary contention of defendant Nos.3 to 5 is that as per the registered partition deed dated 04.04.1982, the shares have been allotted and defendant No.1 was a minor at the time of registered partition deed. The records indicate that Item No.4 was the property acquired and the family has received the compensation amount. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that the father of defendant No.1 has received the compensation to his share, as well as that of the defendant No.1 as his guardian which is impermissible. The Trial Court under the impugned order has come to the conclusion that the contention that the deceased Sri.Gowdra Channappa took share as a guardian of defendant No.1 and whether defendant No.1 was a minor at the time of partition and the extent of share he got etc., are required to be considered along with the main matter and at this stage, there cannot be any mini trial with regard to the rights of the parties. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32089 WP No. 17980 of 2021 6. On perusal of the registered partition deed dated 04.04.1982 and the averments made in the affidavit accompanying the application and reasoning of the Trial Court, I am of the view that the Trial Court was fully justified in deferring the contention of defendant Nos.3 to 5. Hence, there is no merit in the petition. The same is rejected. 7. It is always open for the defendants to raise their contentions in the suit, so that the Trial Court can adjudicate the same in accordance with law. 8. The Trial Court shall consider for early disposal of the suit. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33