- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34446-DB RFA No. 899 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 OF 2015 (PAR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT VENKATALAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF KENCHAPPA, DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNITHIMMAIAH, MAJOR RESIDING AT NO.122, ROYAL VILLA, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, NEAR BSNL OFFICE, ULLAL MAIN ROAD, JNANAJYOTHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 056 2. SMT NARASAMMA WIFE OF LATE AMBANNA, DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNITHIMMAIAH, MAJOR, RESIDING AT AVALAGARE, BIDADI POST, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 3. SMT LAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF CHIKKANNA (ANGADI), DAUGHTER OF LATE MUNITHIMMAIAH, MAJOR, RESIDING AT E3, NEAR ANGANAWADI, THOTADA GUDDADAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34446-DB RFA No. 899 of 2015 BANGALORE-560 073 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI VENKATARAMANASWAMY SON OF LATE MUNITHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs., 1(a) SMT. PADMAMMA, W/O LATE VENKATARAMANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 1(b) SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, D/O LATE VENKATARAMANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 1(c) SRI. MUNIRAJU, S/O LATE VENKATARAMANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 1(d) SMT. ANASURA.V, D/O LATE VENKATARAMANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT THIMMAPPANAPALYA, (BENACHAKALLUPALYA) 'D' GROUP LAYOUT, SRIGANGADAKAVALU, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560091. (AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED:22.08.2023) 2. SMT RATHNAMMAWIFE OF LATE VENKATESH,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. SRI GOVINDARAJU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34446-DB RFA No. 899 of 2015 SON OF LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 4. SRI SIDDARAJU SON OF LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 5. SRI MUNIGOWDA SON OF LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 6. SRI SHARADAMMA DAUGHTER OF LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT THIMMAPPANAPALYA, (BENACHAKALLUPALYA), D GROUP LAYOUT, SRIGANGADAKAVALU, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BANGALORE-560 091 (AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED:22.08.2015) …RESPONDENTS (R1(c), R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; VIDE ORDER DATED:22.08.2023, R1(A, B & D) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.08.2014 PASSED IN OS NO.5750/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE XXXVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, DISMISSED THE SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34446-DB RFA No. 899 of 2015 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present first appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2014 passed by the XXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, (CCH-39) in O.S.No.5750/2013 filed by appellants herein seeking partition and separate possession claiming their 3/5th share in the suit schedule properties measuring 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.23/20 and 27 guntas in Sy.No.23/21 situated at Srigandadakavalu Village, Yeshwantapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. 2. The defendants who are the brothers and their children neither entered appearance nor filed written statement. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:- "1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs claimed? 2. What order or decree?" - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34446-DB RFA No. 899 of 2015 4. The only point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs is in accordance with law or not? 5. The plaintiffs specifically pleaded that there was no previous partition between the parties or family partition in respect of the suit schedule properties. However, the trial Court considered the RTC extracts of the lands marked as Exs.P1 to P4 and mutation register extracts marked as Exs.P5 and P6, which would clearly go to show that there was a partition in the family of the plaintiffs in the year 2011 and as per the said partition, the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the defendants. The said partition was given effect to in the revenue records. The plaintiffs have filed the suit on 06.08.2013, whereas the revenue entries in the records came to be mutated in the names of the defendants as per MR No.2010-2011. Therefore, the Trial Court was of the view that there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to plead that they were not aware of the partition and that there was no previous partition between the parties. The revenue entries remained - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34446-DB RFA No. 899 of 2015 unchallenged, which specifically record that the suit schedule properties fell to the share and possession of the defendants. 6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court indicates that the RTC extracts and MR extracts were produced by the plaintiffs themselves, whereas the revenue records would suggest that there was a partition between the family members in the year 2011 and that was given effect to in the revenue records. 7. We therefore, find no substance in this appeal, which is why it is dismissed. 8. In view of appeal having been dismissed, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE NG CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4